Ethical dilemmas

"The end excuses any evil." The Greek playwright Sophocles penned this statement in the drama, Electra, and this question has plagued the field of philosophy and ethics since the origin of mankind. Do the means justify the end? This dilemma now has a name, Consequentialism, so it can be studied and talked about by overpaid and underworked philosophers and ethicists. The answer lies, however, in the nature of the situation. If the means involved, let's say killing an innocent child in order to save the life of a mother, I would indeed so no. The means are not justified, because one life is not more precious than another. That child could have grown up to be the next great in society and could have cured cancer or found a solution for world hunger and saved millions of lives. So by killing that unborn child you would have been responsible for the deaths that followed suit, because you thought the means (killing the baby) were justified by the end (saving the mother). 

However, this debate is inherently a dilemma because it rests solely on the nature of the situation at hand. There is no black and white or absolute in this debate. There are only particular situations from which particular solutions are right or wrong. Now if the situation was something like speeding on the way to the hospital so that you can see your first child born, then yes, I can see how that would be justified but these type of situations seldom are considered any form of ethical dilemma. Crazy drivers speed on the road all the time without a single thought to the consequences.  

So a more fitting example would be this. Chuck's daughter is very sick, and he does not have the money to pay her medical bills to receive treatment in a hospital. Therefore, Chuck's seemingly only option would be to rob a bank to get the money and in the end, save his daughters life. However, is this ethical and moral. In my opinion, absolutely. Since when do the laws of the land define the worth of another's life or well-being? When did it become okay to allow a child to suffer and die because their family cannot afford treatment? Perhaps a fundraiser would have been a better option for our friend Chuck here, but you get what I'm saying. There isn't really a price to be put on an individual's livelihood so if the means involve breaking the law established by crooked and overpaid politicians in Washington, then by all means do it. If the end is important enough or sacred enough, the means are more than justified.