There's a lot of debate about whether or not the ends justify the means. I think most of us think that we know where we stand in this dichotomy. I've always seen myself as a means-shape-the-ends person.
But what happens in those cases where the proper means cannot lead to the desired ends? Do you just stubbornly try anyway only for inevitable defeat? No matter what the costs?
What if you start off on the wrong foot and need to make the best of it? Do you take a defeatist stance? Or do you do your (*)(*)(*)(*)edest to rectify the situation?
If everyone always follows the prescribed means doesn't that destroy innovation?
But on the other hand, confessing to "The ends justify the means" can pretty much nullify all the benefits of civilization. If we all take the "every man for himself" position, what is the point of society? And if as a nation, we do whatever is in our interest without a basic moral compass, what message do we send?

So perhaps as a dichotomy the philosophy is obnoxious... but does it work as a scale? Where does one draw the line for when the ends justify the means or don't? Is importance really the point on which to draw the scale or something else?

It seems to me that the whole idea is pointless unless we can agree on what acceptable means are and how we prioritize our ends.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside