That doesn’t strike me as a massive qualifier, it strikes me as something that’s straightforwardly true (or as true as a moral claim can be). For example, if you’re in a situation where you can lie to save 1B people from terrible suffering, then I bet most people think it’s not only acceptable, but obligatory to lie. If so, the ends clearly do sometimes justify the means.
I think it is morally correct and that people would agree with it, but I don’t think if it as strong evidence for the claim “we are against this type of behavior.”
Seems to me that you have it exactly backwards? Everyone agrees that the ends usually justify the means—e.g., it’s a good idea to go grocery shopping because this results in getting food. “Are there exceptions?” is exactly the claim that naive consequentialists are getting wrong.
That doesn’t strike me as a massive qualifier, it strikes me as something that’s straightforwardly true (or as true as a moral claim can be). For example, if you’re in a situation where you can lie to save 1B people from terrible suffering, then I bet most people think it’s not only acceptable, but obligatory to lie. If so, the ends clearly do sometimes justify the means.
I think it is morally correct and that people would agree with it, but I don’t think if it as strong evidence for the claim “we are against this type of behavior.”
So massive is too big of a word, but the qualifier in some sense let’s everything in and isn’t powerful.
Seems to me that you have it exactly backwards? Everyone agrees that the ends usually justify the means—e.g., it’s a good idea to go grocery shopping because this results in getting food. “Are there exceptions?” is exactly the claim that naive consequentialists are getting wrong.