Does the end justify the means

I was suffering from depression and paranoia prior to receiving anonymous malicious emails which were threatening in naure and became blackmail. I was terrified and thinking irrationally rather than go to the police I decided to appease my blackmailer and meet the demands which involved improving the career progression of junior colleagues.

However the blackmailer was never saisfied so I then decided to carry out surveilance of the person I suspected. I also tried to trap the suspect by me pretending to be another person on facebook and trying to gather evidence by communicating. That was fraudulent and deceitful but I was very unwell ; psychotic, suicidal.

The moral outcome would be to discover and prove the identity of the suspect but the irrational means I used was immoral and I am therefore no better than the original culprit because I resorted to deception. But I was mentally unwell whereas he was not when blackmailing me.

Does the end justify the means ? Or is only a moral method the only way to achieve a moral ending ? What about undercover detectives ?

If our objective is good, then it doesn't matter if the way we achieve it is bad or wrong or evil.

It is complicated.

There are so many different situations in life which do require some wrongs, in Western society anyway.

Your description of events in your personal life sounds scary. Unfortunately, you chose not to go to the police. You assumed that you didn't have enough information and the case would be essentially closed just like that.

Have you talked with any Therapists or friends about this situation? Have the police now taken over?

I hope that you are working with someone, to help yourself understand what happened and hopefully prevent situations like this from recurring.

Gentle hugs sent your way.

So you've resolved the situation but you are having remorse about how you did it?

I don't think that I could agree with that. I suppose it depends on your definition of evil but I can't see how an act of evil can result in good.

I was not making a statement about the end justifying the means but asking a question. I agree that "evil" is wrong even if it is to fight evil.

However the bible says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Is the bible wrong ?

Eek...the end does not justify the means this time my friend. (In my opinion) Part of me thinks you knew that it isn't justified already, otherwise why ask?

I was never a pragmatist myself, in basic concepts.

Being unwell and now able to view the past from a healthier aspect is now causing guilt?

I didn't know it was illegal to join facebook under a pseudonym.

IDK what moral code you live by, but mine does not give the evil doer the benefit of the doubt once he's caught...however that was done.

even though you think what you did was evil i don't think it was a too bad of a thing you did. you were just trying to stop this.

To be honest with you, I'm not entirely sure in my own ethical judgment
about this....

One of the lessons we should have learned from Watergate is that the end
cannot justify whatever means you wish to use; then-President Nixon used
means up to and including burglary and willful deception to conceal the
activities of Re-election Candidate Nixon.

Most people would say that step-by-step escalation of a response is
acceptable (aiming at the least severe means to achieve a given end).
In such a case, adopting a second persona and using it to go
"undercover" as part of your investigation could be defensible (a
necessary evil, consistent with the ethical standard of proportionate
response).

On the other hand, one of the big warning signs that someone has a
psychopathic/sociopathic/anti-social (depending on which edition of the
DSM you prefer) personality is not showing remorse when you do
something doubtful, objectionable, shady. Knowing that you yourself
are not entirely certain about what you did leaves me feeling relief
that you have some sense of moral standards.

Sorry, I disagree. If my friend is in an abusive relationship and I kill her abuser (wrong act) so she is no longer being abused (good objective) is that okay?

People have committed horrid acts throughout history in the name of "good."