In today's world, people, both individuals and organizational bodies would do just about anything to achieve their set goals and aspirations. The demand for success is high. Do these deeds measure up to the reason why they are carried out? When do ends justify the means?

"The end justifies the means", has its origin from a book written by Italian Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513 called The Prince. In the book, Machiavelli’s thought was that anything can be done no matter what the consequences may be for the end result will be justified; the method used to attain it is of no consequence.
It is generally agreed that if the means is good, then the ends definitely must be morally just too. But that isn't what this quote is really about. It is about justifying if the ends are either good or evil depending on the morality of the means. In cases where the means isn’t morally right but the end results are good controversies arise.
Although quite a number of people agree with Machiavelli that bad actions or immoral acts can be perpetrated in order to achieve a good ending, a larger number disagree. Most people believe that only good and moral deeds should be done in one’s aim to achieve one’s end result- which must be morally just too.
But what can one do when faced with a difficult situation such that there is no option than to do something morally unjust in order to get desired results (which are good by the way)? Is there any way in which bad can become good? Is there a possibility of turning seemingly wicked actions into good deeds?
What’s good is good and what’s evil is pure evil, I agree. But in reality, both good and evil are relative to some extent. There’s another quote that says that “one man’s meal is another man’s poison”. This means that we have different views and opinions on different subjects and situations. What is good for the goose might at other times not be good for the gander.
What one should do when faced with such a herculean task is not to back down and give up with the mind that since the means is wrong, there’s no need to waste efforts. A further step can still be taken, which determine whether one should back down or not.
The best thing to do is to examine the means more closely. Who are the receiving parties? Why is it evil to these parties? In what way is it evil to these parties? Is there another way in which it can carried out such that it will be less evil to these parties? By subtracting or adding to it, is it possible to minimize the supposed wickedness? All these questions can be answered truthfully and sincerely from someone from the receiving party with the ends in mind. If this can be done, then the means has been transformed from evil into something “not totally evil” and it can be termed as a “sacrifice” offered in order to get the good ends. After all, gold must pass through fire in order to be pure and refined.

Ethical consequences of Machiavelli’s Ends justifies the means
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/ethical-consequences-of-machiavellis-ends-justifies-the-means/

Ethical consequences of Machiavelli’s Ends justifies the means
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/ethical-consequences-of-machiavellis-ends-justifies-the-means/

Ethical consequences of Machiavelli’s Ends justifies the means
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/ethical-consequences-of-machiavellis-ends-justifies-the-means/