The “ends justifying the means” usually involves doing something wrong to achieve a positive end ...and justifying the wrongdoing by pointing to a good outcome (which is a matter of opinion, usually assessing it from the perspective of a self-promoting and limited group).

The danger in this limited perspective, percieved by a few as a good outcome ...is that, when considering doing something that others may percieve as wrong ...we've already compromised certain values held by others., So, we've already sort of eliminated the view of others ...willingly qualifying on our own what we would consider a 'good outcome'??

Machiavelli: The Little Prince

quote: "Princes who set little store by their word but have known how to over-reach men by their cunning have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealing. The prince must be a lion, but he must also know how to play the fox. He who wishes to deceive will never fail to find willing dupes. The prince, in short, ought not to quit good courses if he can help it, but should know how to follow evil courses if he must ... Nothing makes a prince so well thought of as to undertake great enterprises and give striking proofs of his capacity. If you consider his achievements, you will find them all great and some extraordinary ...while his subjects, occupied with these great actions, had neither time nor opportunity to oppose them." 

Wiki has given this assessment: "Hidden within alternate philosophies, there is also hedonistic utilitarianism, as the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person." or (http://theyliveintherealsenseofthekingdom.blogspot.com/)

The problem with this is that happiness seems to hold more value than right or wrong.  It often mostly considers a covetousness or wanton spirit. And at the forefront of the argument or conflict is that each point put forth has the tendency to focus more on individual happiness, sometimes at the expense or entire absence of consideration of others.  In reality, it does not really focus on the aggregate happiness at all, but instead vehemently targets those who oppose any individually expressed viewpoints.

Why do 'good' people do questionable things? Who really knows?? But, here are some reasons:

• If corruption, major or minor, is a part of the workplace or environment, people often become blind to its occurrence and its possible costs.

• Cognitive dissonance and rationalization.  When people's actions differ from their morals, they begin to rationalize both to protect themselves from a painful contradiction and to build up protection against accusations.

The bigger the dissonance, the larger the rationalization, and the longer it lasts, the less immoral it seems.

• People compare their present behavior to what they've done in the past. Another way people slide down the slope of unethical behavior is to stop seeing that behavior as bad.

As the unethical becomes routine, the extremely unethical, once unthinkable, enters the realm of possibility.

• Sometimes people, having been moral and forthright in their dealings for a long time, feel as if they have banked up some kind of "ethical credit," which they may use to justify immoral behavior in the future.

• If a conflict of interest is publicly disclosed, it can seem less problematic, as if it has been agreed that it's all right. That can lead people to indulge their bias.  

• In order to fit in with a group, people do things they might not otherwise. That can lead them to ignore abuses for the sake of peace or unity and go along with questionable decisions. 

Children who've been brought up with parental commitment to avoid using the word 'No' ...viewed as psychologically damaging, what kind of adults do they become??  Likely they will have a broad scope of accepting behaviors they are practiced (or learned) in rationalizing. The things they don't accept are those things which have limitations set upon them ...which they view as intolerant.

While kids almost always appear to beg for controls, limitations, and confident guidance during their childhood ...later on, (if there had been an absence of it early on) there seems to be resentment and anger towards any attempt to introduce it. (http://couldshouldwouldoneisgoodwhoisthree.blogspot.com/)

In considering 'the end justifies the means', I view it as only God being qualified to justify anything. (http://canbeinginsinbeadvantageous.blogspot.com/)

What does it mean to 'engage'??

1. to occupy the attention or efforts of 
2. to secure for aid
3. to attract or please
4. to bind, as by pledge, promise, contract

One of the most significant engagements is between a man and a woman, as they get engaged to get married.  

And of highest value within that relationship has consistently been to ...

...to be happy???