If a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it are justifiable

There are not many circumstances in which goals are worthy enough to justify a misleading process. In fact, it is commonly shared that the means are as important as the goals, regardless of their imminency. Despite the tendency of ignoring trivial details of the process especially when the deed is not observed by anyone but oneself, it is strongly emphasized that any achievement can be worthy only when the means are done within the rule of justice. This essay will demonstrate situations that arouse conflicts in weighing the importance of either the goals or the means, and provide reasons why it may be important not to neglect the significance of the means.
Admittedly, it can be difficult to go against the temptation to take a shortcut in terms of achieving a desirable result. Especially when particular conditions such as direct rewards or punishments are provided, people tend to bury one’s head in the sand by trespassing given rules and principles. For, in many cases, achievements are more obvious and visible than the ways how such goals could be acquired. Let us take an example of a sports game. We observe many incidents in which some players had undergone illegal doping in order to win the game. Those players might have thought that if they had enough luck not to be uncovered in terms of their doping then they would have won the game. It is fully understandable how enticing it might be when the rewards are too significant to one’s career. Nevertheless, these behaviors undermine fairness and impartiality, resulting in a serious violation in the spirit of sports. Thus, it is never less important to emphasize the importance of the means and processes in terms of preserving the basic ethics of life.
Instances such as euthanasia and death sentences are currently the most controversial issues, considering the invaluable and great importance of the goals. In case of euthanasia, some countries have already legitimized the practice due to the fact that the pain of the person in the moment of death could be alleviated. But others still believe that such practices should not be legalized because the means cannot be justified in any case. Killing a person on purpose can be misused in any circumstance, so that the difference between euthanasia and murder is subtle as it appears. The potential of being misused cannot be overlooked, because once principles are infringed it will never be easy to retain the same weight of the particular rule. History proves how difficult it is to reach a consensus of establishing a certain principle, whereas it is relatively simple to destroy it.
The same goes on to death sentences. Even though the commitment of crime is so serious that it seems that the person in charge has to be sentenced to death, these practices cannot be justified due to the potential of harming the dignity of human beings. Especially when it comes to punishing, it shall be important to notice that the public are likely to be emotionally ignited in deciding the penalty. Considering that the federal justice has the responsibility to be open to the possibility that the suspect may be guiltless and falsely accused, it may be too risky to undergo extreme penalties such as a death sentence. This example shows how a process may be more crucial than the goals in many circumstances.
The conclusion now stands that misleading means cannot be justified regardless of the worthiness of goals. This essay provided several examples and reasons in order to support the argument, thereby preserving the quintessential principles of humanity and society.