(1) The motto means:  Conduct in itself undesirable may be justified if the end attained is important enough to warrant it.  In every case, then, the question must arise:  Is the end to be attained worth the cost?  To justify means that are intrinsically bad, it must be shown that the end attained is so good as to overbalance this evil.  Was the advancement of the Church worth the cost in human suffering, estrangement, and bitterness that the Jesuits exacted?  Is the advancement of labor interests worth the destruction of property and life, the fostering of class-enmity and of moral anarchism that the criminal wing of the I. W. W. stands for?  Are votes for women worth the similar evils which British suffragettes are drifting into?  Sometimes a cause is so important that almost any act is justified in its advancement.  But such cases are rare, at least in modern life.  Always there must be a balancing of good and evil.  And the trouble with the attitude of mind which we have illustrated is that the end sought is usually not so all-important as to warrant the grave evils which its seekers cause.  When the Titanic was sinking, the boat’s officers shot several men who tried to jump into the lifeboats ahead of the women and children.  It was probably the only way to stop a mad panic stricken rush, which would have endangered the lives of all as well as broken the chivalrous code which is worth so much sacrifice.  The evil of shooting down unarmed and frightened men was great; but it was undoubtedly justified by the end attained.  Whether any of the other instances mentioned are cases where the evil done would be similarly justified by the end, if thereby attained, we shall not here discuss.  But the principle is evident.  The end justifies evil means only if it is so supremely good as to overbalance that evil.

(2) It is pertinent, however, to add two considerations.  First, we must feel sure that no less harmful means are available.  And secondly, we must feel sure that these evil means are really adapted to attain the purpose.  Is there no other way of securing votes for women than by the hysterical and criminal pranks our British sisters have been playing?  And will those irritating acts actually forward their cause, or tend to bring about a revulsion of feeling?  Did the crimes of the Jesuits make the Church triumphant?  Not in the long run.  Immediate gains may often be won by unpleasant methods, as in the case of the Titanic.  But when the struggle is bound to be a long one, as in the case of woman’s suffrage and industrial justice, methods which (not to beg the question) would ordinarily be criminal are seldom in the end advantageous.  The McNamara case hurt the I. W. W. sorely.  Suffrage legislation has possibly been retarded in Britain.  And in both cases there are probably more efficacious, as well as less harmful, ways of attaining the desired end.