Can A Rotten Egg Make A Good Omelet Analysis

Introduction
Can a rotten egg make a good Omelet? The end/means dilemma is an old and popular scenario. The answer to this question depends on what the type of goals or ends are and what means are being used to achieve them. In order to correctly answer to this philosophical problem, it is important to define the terms "ends" and "means”. The “ends” are the intended or desired goal and the “means” are the way in which something is done to achieve the goal.
The phrase “by any means necessary” says that there are no rules or limits because a good outcome excuses wrongs committed to attain.
Gandhi, pioneer and a theorist of satyagraha said, “I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means”. Indeed,
The second example, old colonialism has claimed that it occupied others' lands to spread civilization. When a certain power occupied the wealthiest country on earth at that time, it robbed its wealth, divided it. Under the pretext of fighting for alleged "goodness", countries were destroyed and many crimes were committed. It is no more "goodness" is the end which is reached by devilish means.
Therefore, deontology and consequentialism are each middle of the difference between two main ethical positions. Deontology says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on some quality of the action itself. Many thinks that certain actions are inherently bad, things like murder, torture, stealing, and many others. John Locke and Immanuel Kant are both deontologists and think that means are more important than the results. Hence, right end alone can't be source of morality. Examples are useful to explain the deontological position, Mao killed more than 45 Million of his people in 4 years during “The Great Leap Forward”. The
End was supposed to be a better way of life through Communism. Also, 49 Million of his own countrymen were killed by Stalin’s directives, also in the name of improving society
Therefore, there are four major arguments against the idea that the ends justify the means. The first argument against the idea that the ends justify the means is that poorly chosen means may result in the wrong end being achieved. The second argument is collateral damage.
The third argument is “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Indeed, inappropriate means always lead to inappropriate ends. And, the last argument presented by Mahatma Gandhi as
“the ends and the means are one”. It says that violence engenders the violence, revenge leads to counter-revenge and a war sows the seeds of further wars. To conclude, the means employ determine the nature of end product, that is why ends cannot ethically justify their means.
1. If not, what does justify means to ends?
The character of God is missing in this discussion. For the Christian, there is no justifying immoral behavior, regardless of the outcome of it or the motivation for it. The Ten
Commandments make it clear that stealing, lying, greed, murder, and adultery are