The end never justifies the means. A person could state that an exception should be made, yet they could give no rational explanation for why their exception was valid while those of others weren't. Accordingly, if the end ever justifies the means, logically there are no rules and ultimately, no desirable ends, since prescribed ends themselves involve rules. It is a motto of mine that if anyone may be used as the means to an end, everyone becomes the means to a meaningless end. What consequentialists fail to note is that a claim that some consequences are preferable to others is itself a rule, and if an individual's desired end justifies the means, each person arbitrarily makes their own rules and so there cannot be any ideal end. In other words, relativism is the inevitable product of consequentialism. I support strict deontological ethics, therefore. Every action is either moral or immoral in and of itself, though of course all observable circumstances must be considered before a logical decision can be made as to whether a given act is right or wrong.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)