The question of the end and the means — does the end (good) justify the means (bad) of achieving it? — is not clearly defined. Moreover, he seems to have two opposing correct answers, so that his unconditionally good solution for one situation may well turn out to be criminal in another.
How does it work? On the one hand, we can say that joy in this world is not worth grief at all; all the more so — the joy of some is not worth the grief of others, and the joy is still only imaginary — the grief of the real; for this very reason, good ends do not justify cruel means, and crimes even with the best intentions (that is, those that are subjectively felt by the criminal as the best) remain crimes. On the other hand, if one has to weigh not joy and sorrow, but sorrow and sorrow, and with less sorrow one can avoid more, then such an end justifies such a means, even requires it, and only a morally blind, hypocrite does not see this … Here are different answers. That is, the very meaning of the question of ends and means is completely different in different situations.
So there are —
So, «the end does not justify the means», not forgetting the possibility of a conflict, means:
1) goodness to another cannot be done against his will … Although, say, a suicide must be saved from a noose even against his will;
2) supposed good does not justify real evil… Although it happens that salvation from actual evil requires desperate measures;
3) the social whole cannot make the individual a victim… Although, if the death of the social whole is followed by the death of the individuals themselves, then…
4) no, the highest worldview is higher than simple human rights … But life itself, the need to save it, is higher and more right. Etc…
In general, this means that the highest goal is only man, only life.