Is there a consensus in the philosophical/ethical community as to
when, if ever, "the ends justify the means?"

Cheers/Skaal/Prost  Brew1940-ga,

This phrase seems to be an attitude favored by politiicians  - and
their "philosopher" Michiavelli (Italy, 1469-1527 "The Prince"), and
it does have a certain application to politics as "the art of the
possible," and wars are the handiest example.  That's the real world,
and we all practice this to some extent: "white lies".
Emmmanuel Kant, the Germany philosopher (1724-1804), certainly did not
accept this premisis, and I don't think many of his colleagues do.  It
gets down to what the "means" are:  harmless "while lies" maybe okay,
because one's wife won't be any happier if you tell what you really
think of her new dress/hair color), or if one prevericates to protect
someone whom one believes is being unjustifiably accused or maligned 
- but it could be true.

In the usually or somewhat theoretical world of philosophy and ethics,
there is not much room for this statement, so I think the consensus
there goes against it.

I hope a researcher can enlighten us both.
Myoarin

It's a standard entry-level debate in philosophy, between Kantianism
and Utilitarianism.  Kantianism is based on following rules and
Utilitarianism is based on the ends justifying the means.  There is a
lot more to it, but that's the general point of both.

There are nearly endless sources available that review this topic:
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=utilitarianism+kantianism+site%3A.edu

The only majority consensus is that neither theory is perfect,
otherwise we would not bother to study philosophy.  They aren't the
only two ways of looking at it either, but they address one of the
simplest ethical questions and show why the extreme in either
direction is hard to justify.