Means and Ends

The dispute over whether the ends justify the means is both well-known and contentious.  However, a less-known issue is the flip-side of this - whether the means justify the ends.  An example of this concept would be a person deciding to live an unhealthy life, consuming non-nutritious foods and taking many risks, and then dying early as a consequence.  While most people seem to accept that this particular scenario relies simply on personal choice, the issue can also apply to much bigger questions.  One of these which has particular relevance today is whether humans should expend their energy and resources trying to develop means of transportation which cause less pollution than most current cars, or whether they should simply continue to utilise cars which run on fossil fuels, as in the short run this is easier.  I think that, like that of the better-known 'ends-justifying-means' dispute, the answer to this issue is not clear-cut.  In some cases, the means do justify even bad ends.  In others, the resultant ends are far too terrible to justify even the most pleasant of means.