If you are like me and want to be a good person, you are concerned with what you do and how you do it. A good person does good things. And a good person acts in a good way. But is it ever justified to do good things in a bad way? Can good outcomes offset bad actions in the present?
As an example, could it be justified for a manager to mistreat employees to produce more medicine? Mistreating employees is not a good way to act. But without enough medicine people may die.
If a manager decides to mistreat their employees in this example, they are acting like their actions control the outcome when the reality is that they do not. If all of the employees quit as a result of being mistreated then less medicine will be produced. If a storm disrupts the work then the employees may be mistreated, but no additional medicine is produced. If the manager dies before the medicine is produced, the original manager may only be remembered for mistreating employees. In these cases, that manager is a bad person because they mistreated employees and no potentially offsetting good occurs as a result of their actions.
We have extremely limited control over the future whereas we have control over our actions in the present. The ends cannot be guaranteed whereas the means are guaranteed. So the ends cannot justify the means.
I find this principle particularly difficult to apply to myself. Often I choose to motivate myself with the whip rather than the carrot. But if I am going to be a good person then I need to treat everyone in a good way, including myself.