When you are trying to achieve something notable, is it acceptable to follow questionable methods so long as you get to a good place? Do the ends justify the means?
When you are striving to achieve a moral end, it is tempting to use any means to get there. It is particularly true if there is some obstacle in the way that is preventing you from succeeding. “If I can just make it happen,” your inner voice might say, “I know the good that will come from it.”
If you think in a strictly transactional sense, this might well be true. Let’s say you have to do a slightly bad thing to reach a goal that makes a significant positive impact. In this scenario, the good that results is much more impactful than the bad that happened along the way.
As the saying goes, though, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you follow the above reasoning, it might well be possible to justify any action, no matter how vile, by expecting an even greater good to result. If that good never ultimately materializes, then what?
A different popular saying illustrates the difference: “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.” The omelette — the positive that comes out at the end — is worth whatever rules must be “broken” along the way.
Occasionally you might well be forced to act in ways that an earlier you might find unacceptable. As you get older and more experienced, you might well take a more nuanced approach. Or is that just a way to justify bad actions? Do the ends justify the means?
Related questions: How do we know we are right? Are religion and morality linked? What makes an action evil? When should you not follow the law?