Do you think the end or the means is more important? Explain.
I would very much think on the means and the ends.
Over population, for example, is a going concern as too many people are using up to few resources. Sir David Attenborough voiced a concern last year that in order to for life to continuation, slowing population growth was essential and this is where an ends justifies the means set up could come. An initial thought would be to encourage voluntary sterilization (I would argue this to be aimed more towards males as the necessary procedure is far simpler, and sperm can be donated and frozen to be used a later date), but then could lead to unpleasant pressure on those who choose not to. A limited Child policy akin to China has proved to be inefficient and unsavory in the results…
This prompts me to think of the Villain of a recent popular series of Super Hero Movies, this fella:
Thanos: the Mad Titan. His plan was to erase a random 50% of the Universe to restore balance to the universe and start a more progressive future as he believed the amount of people in the Universe far outnumbered the resources. In his mind, the ends justified the means and making it a random selection removed a prejudice on whom should go. The problem here, and I would imagine in a similar real life situation, the ends wouldn’t turn out quite how you expected.
I would say that if it can be excused it needs to be looked on as a whole… The bombing of Coventry could have been prevented in the second World War, but in doing so it would have shown that the allies had cracked the German codes.. leading to the code being changed and the war continuing for probably another two years. On that occasion you could argue in favour… but with the atom bomb? No, as it created far more problems than anticipated.