This question has struck me as fundamentally flawed. It doesn't specify which ends; the ends that were intended? The ends that happened as a direct result? The collection of all significant* results, direct or indirect, that stemmed from the means? Personally, I think it should be the latter for the purposes of discussion. When we talk about bad means, I think we really mean a course of action that will produce a specific positive result (the "ends" as usually meant), but that will also produce some negative results, probably indirectly.
Example: an unlicensed surgeon performs experimental surgeries, saving the lives of some people that would have died at the hands of a licensed surgeon using conventional procedures, but cutting short others. He does not inform his patients that he is unlicensed, because he fears otherwise they would decline his services. He makes a good deal of money through these fraudulent means. He believes he has done a great good by offering some people a new lease on life; these are the "ends" he was aiming for, and they were bought with the blood of others. The reason we question his means is precisely because of the negative results they've had; if his means had no negative results, they wouldn't be questionable.
*I use the word "significant" to mean any results that are not a "butterfly effect" consequence that could never have been predicted.
