If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting y

The claim that any means taken to attain worthy goals are justifiable has certainly aroused much contention and pushed many important decisions into a state of standstill or of dilemma. Though people tend to underscore the end result, the cost and the consequence entailed in the measure used to attain goals should also be weighed with equal importance. Therefore, I demur to what is stated in the claim in most circumstances since to attain a goal, the means capitalized on has to be deliberated to make the goal worthwhile, thereby with the justness of the means deemed.
Granted that there are situations in which the goal must be accomplished irrespective of any reasons, thus, justifying the usage of any means. For instance, in a life-or-death situation, any means to sustain life should be considered justifiable. Imagine in a plane about to crash and there were nothing for the pilots to do in order to prevent the plane from crashing. Therefore, one had no choice but to jumping out of the plane, regardless of equipped with a parachute or not, so that the chance of him surviving the air crash might be larger. In this scenario, since few options for survival are available, jumping out of the plane, perilous or not, should be properly justified. Another imagined example is that provided that one found himself trapped in an insular island with no immediate shelter, food, or medical care, he or she had to triage: exploiting every possible measure in order to stay alive: eating fresh meat, building a makeshift sleeping bed on the tree branch, or drinking muddy water to stay hydrated, before he or she was rescued. In such exigent conditions discussed above, when there are few options to choose from, and the goal has to be immediately or necessarily met, then the means to ensure the accomplishment of that goal should be justified, without much controversy.
However, what about those conditions in which more options of means are available and in which the exigency is not transparent? One should take into account the difficulty of achieving that goal before attempting to conclude the justifiability of the means. Take medication. If a patient is diagnosed with a malignant cancer, then typically, it would be reasonable for him or her to receive chemotherapy. Notwithstanding the toxicity and unbearable gruesome side effects of the chemotherapeutic agents, it will deem worthwhile for the patient to brook the pain in order for a higher chance of complete cure and treatment. The goal of the patient being cured is worthy pursuing, then the use of chemotherapy, though disturbing “to” the patient, should be justified. However, if the patient unfortunately has a malignancy that resounds poorly to chemotherapy, but nevertheless still remans a five percent chance of attaining a complete cure, should the patient undergo chemotherapy and tolerate the accompanying affliction? In this case, although the goal is still worth pursuing, as it still stands a ten percent chance of success, it is far more difficult to achieve. Further, chances are that the patient may respond negatively to treatment and live in agony for a long spell time before death. Therefore, the difficulty of reaching the goal, while worthy, renders the means less justifiable.
The issue at hand becomes more convoluted on a larger scale, making the wholesale description in the prompt more groundless. In an intertwined society with established economy, decisions to institute any developmental plans or programs will almost certainly be met with dissension and defense, as the end result or benefit will entail potentially destructive repercussion. Take the construction of a dam or a nuclear power plant. Both play a pivotal role in facilitating a country’s or a nation’s economy, but they engender positive and negative impacts. The goal of building a dam or a reservoir is to ensure a sustained and accessible supply of usable water for human beings. However, building dams and reservoirs, as often heard in news or debated in academia, obstructs the operation of many ecosystems and even obliterates many species, which fomented dissension and objections from environmentalist groups. Although dams benefit human beings directly, they also damage niches of wild life species and might cause irreversible damage. From this perspective, it appears that the means may not be justifiable. However, this does not stop us from continuing building dams and reservoirs in modern days since doing so is the most efficient and effective means of a stable water supply, when compared with other means of water storage. Moreover, discussion continues and governmental agencies have many times negotiated with environmentalists and incorporated their suggestions into developmental plans. To mitigate the adverse effect, government agencies, along with the collaboration of environmental groups, have applied measures in deciding the locale of the dam and the reservoir, and protect habitats of important species that inhabit near the dam. This showcases that although the goal of building dams is worthy, the adoption of means to achieve it is definitely not decided in a slapdash manner, but instead based on thoughtful, thorough, and deliberate. To wit, instead of just utilizing any means, goals that have far-reaching implications should be achieved by approaches that are well-thought, well-planned, and well-deliberated.
Another case is the nuclear power. As a mean, it can fulfill the goal of providing ample energy source with a lower cost. However, many countries have supplanted it with other less efficient renewable energy source, such as hydroelectric or solar power. It is because nuclear power may yield severely serious consequence, if it is not used appropriately, as shown in the renowned Fukushima Daichi nuclear crisis. The unexpected system errors led to drastic irreparable damage that still nowadays inflict local citizens and the Japanese government. Therefore, this still challenges the trust of the claim since despite the fact that the means may be an expedient way of attaining the goal, the potential consequences and repercussions nevertheless should be contemplated and mulled over before justifying the means used.
All told, only under specific exigent circumstances does exploiting any means deem justifiable. Most of the times, it is common to be in the state of dilemma, where negative consequences might arise if certain means are employed but the goal is worthy pursuing. Benefits and repercussions therefore have to be constantly weighed and incorporated into decision making. Not all means are justifiable, but their justness may change along with the context.