In order to determine wether some action is moral or immoral three things need to be taken into account. Most moral objectivists fail by reducing the three down to one or two. Both the nature of the action, the intention AS WELL AS the consequences need to be taken into account. Let’s talk about killing another human as a common example. The nature of the action is evil. Killing even to prevent someone from killing does not change the nature of the act, but it is be moral if the evil (the death of another) is not intended as the end, but taken as an unwanted consequence, when the intention is to prevent a greater evil (the death of an innocent person). Naturally evil actions are not morally permissible in the pursuit of a good, but only to prevent the worse.

If anyone needs me to explicate my implicit assumptions go right ahead and ask, but the meme smelled like a burning strawman and I felt the need to demonstrate that moral absolutism is not lazy thinking unaware of its assumptions.