Does the end justify the means?

This is an old question, but one which I have not heard discussed anywhere lately. One way to look at it is to say that it is simply a matter of calculation. If (ends – means) > 0 then the means is justified.

The objection to this reasoning is the law of unintended consequences. Corrupt ends have a way of transforming noble ends. For example, the discussion on the use of torture has been all about whether torture achieves its immediate objectives. Suppose for the moment that it did. Would that justify it? What if use of torture turns us into monsters, leading to policies that we would not otherwise undertake? Would that not be a factor?

A simpler and more mundane example is one I read about in the book Freakonomics. A child care center had a problem with mothers who arrived late to pick up their children. They imposed a fine. The result? Greater tardiness. The imposition of the fine transformed what had been a source of guilt into a fee paid to the agency.