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.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

It is impossible to say with absolute certainty, because we cannot know the future. Since the future is always in question, the ends and means have to be judged on a case by case basis.

Sometimes the ends justify the means. Sometimes they dont.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

The end never justifies the means. A person could state that an exception should be made, yet they could give no rational explanation for why their exception was valid while those of others weren't. Accordingly, if the end ever justifies the means, logically there are no rules and ultimately, no desirable ends, since prescribed ends themselves involve rules. It is a motto of mine that if anyone may be used as the means to an end, everyone becomes the means to a meaningless end. What consequentialists fail to note is that a claim that some consequences are preferable to others is itself a rule, and if an individual's desired end justifies the means, each person arbitrarily makes their own rules and so there cannot be any ideal end. In other words, relativism is the inevitable product of consequentialism. I support strict deontological ethics, therefore. Every action is either moral or immoral in and of itself, though of course all observable circumstances must be considered before a logical decision can be made as to whether a given act is right or wrong.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I think I can envision situations in which the ends might justify the means.

Moral decisions are rarely black-and-white, "sometimes" they are, but often they're not.

Usually, the difficult decisions boil down to choices between the lesser of two evils, or between two unpleasant situations in which the outcome might resemble a coin-toss.

There are dozens and dozens of war-time stories with threads that run like that, the Coventry thing might be one, the use of nuclear weapons might be another, etc etc.

The real question though, still boils down to "what's the goal". 'Cause often it seems, there are more important issues than saving lives.

Yeah, go figure....

/scratches head, smiles knowingly....

A bit too strict for me, though we probably approach these issues from the same Kantian root:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

I suspect that you have taken this a step further and determined that it 'has become a universal law'?

Im inclined most to agree with Sadistic Saviour's view stated earlier - each situation must be judged on a case by case basis. My position would be that these judgements must be made, however, with reference to the maxim of universality noted above.

A simple reference merely to 'ends' alone leaves the subjective free will of each individual to indulge in their own personal tyranny, from the ethical viewpoint.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

I support Kant's ethics only in that he opposed using anyone as the means to an end. Overall, I actually support a somewhat more flexible approach, more like that of Sir David Ross. Kant put actions into classes much as rule utilitarians do- without regard for the specific circumstances. I support strict deontological ethics, however, in that I hold that, if we could know all of the circumstances relevant to a given moral decision, there would be only one justifiable action to take. I also hold that we must make our moral decisions on an act-by-act basis after gathering as much relevant information as we can to make the best ethical decision possible. Errors in actions are inevitable, of course, though errors in intent are not.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)