I think in 99% of cases, no. Honesty is the best policy. However life is not so black and white and you must allow for exceptions.

No. Honesty and integrity are the best policies, period.

I think it's subjective. I may sound hypocritical, but I think it depends on how bad the means and how good the end. For example, I would feel justified shooting someone to prevent a rape, murder, or a brutal assault, but I sure as hell wouldn't be taking potshots at shoplifters.

Depends on what you're doing. To paraphrase Tywin Lannister, is it more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner?

Your post made me think of a great documentary on Netflix called PUSH.
I think everyone has their own limits of what they would do to justify the means and can't really know until they are truly tested. We always seem to THINK we know how we would react but I don't know, as situations evolve what you think is very subject to change.

Would you kill Hitlers mother before he was born if that was the only way to stop him?
I would not, 2 reasons, I would not and it wouldn't change anything, someone else would have taken his place.

Not usually. There may be exceptions, but not many.

The consequences can never be fully predicted so, even with the best of intentions you can’t know that your bad action actually WILL have the desired positive outcome.
Better be a Kantian.

Depends on the ends and the means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. To me if one gets all warm and fuzzy from doing something that is a reward which makes the act a selfish one. There is a big dispute on the existence of altruism but to be truly worthwhile I think it can only come from altruistic deeds.

Natures ends is to evolve life. In this case all means are allowed and used no matter who or what suffers.

Maybe I'm taking the question to far, but it is quite complicated.
What if the officer tricks the person into admitting guilt but they are innocent?
Is someone making themselves look better to attract a mate lieing?
Good and bad are constructs of society, which are basically the realization of the end justifies the means.

I would say, if you take that approach, then the means will poison the ends until they're something completely different.

Politican are the UNjustice system, not a good example as they are the world Champion of liars.

If I was Jewish during the 2nd world war in Germany. Would I Iie about being Jewish?, HELL YEAH!!!! to justify saving my skin. Still best policy, do not harm and be honest.
Saving your skin comes first of all.

For me it's got to be a case-by-case judgement. I think some ends are so important that they justify extraordinary means, but also that some means are so extreme that no ends can validate their use. I am, in general, a utilitarian, but it's a guide rather than a rule. I'm all for increasing the overall happiness or wellbeing of a population, for instance, but not if it means the torture or suffering of another person to bring it about. I think ethical schools of thought usually coexist, except they occasionally butt heads and leave us with real dilemmas.

Depends on the circumstances. For me its simple. If I do this to get that, will it compromise who I am and what I believe. Certainly you could argue that a person could walk a fine line and justify anything with the final outcome. But the real question is, what isthe end result you want.

As an exhample, for me, your political example wouldnt work for me. I'm not willinig to compromise myself with lies just to get in office. On the other hand, if its a kill or be killed type of situation, then it might compromise my beliefs, and I may feel guilt over it. But if it means I stay alive. I think you get the idea.

In any case, I think the point is that the ends don't justify the means. But there are desperation circumstances that I think the means most probably are justifiable.

I think it depends on all the specifics. What do you think?

To me, the end always justifies the means... if it's for the greater good and not just my own benefit.

The problem is that things are never so clear cut.

A person who lies, cheats, and manipulates, learns that these things work. They don't just stop doing those things when they get into power. Even if they try, there will always be moments when it's more expeditious to act unethically again.

When we use illegal or unethical tactics to incriminate a person, then where is the line? Which crimes do we do that for? Just HOW FAR can we push the illegality? Since officers are making determinations of which crimes are good and which are bad, then what gives them the right to do that, and if they are breaking the law, then doesn't that remove any moral authority that they had to make those decisions?

So no, I'm not really of the mind that the end justifies the means. I believe in the rule of law. That said, I believe that laws need to be just (it's a different debate when the laws are not just). I'm particularly for allowing certain official posts to have discretionary powers, and for some oversight to occur to ensure that while these may be used, they should not be abused. It's a balance though.

Is it a means to an end? Seriously this is a Machiavellian question. Machiavelli almost celebrated the notion that a politician cheats and manipulates,but it ends being for the overall good.

It really depends.
Is it done with love?
Was a life at stake?
Was the person it was done to better off for it? I.e. Are they on a path that will lead to self destruction and sabotage or abandonment are their only hope? Like if you're in a relationship where you both love each other but it'll never amount to forever, so you break it off, even though you love them.

Public office, no. Because if you lie and cheat to get there, when things get tough, power corrupts.

Police, it depends on what the person did and if they're guilty. If it's a rapist, child molester, murderer, I don't care how you got your evidence or confession, but if it's over pot, no.

No, it does not. Integrity is the key word. Generally speaking this saying is used for bad reasons,

It tends to end up biting me

both examples you described don't actually hold water.

when it's about getting into PUBLIC office - well, isn't that exactly how it's done in the us of a? a 'worthwhile way' in a capitalist system will always be a separating way, a segregation of classes. no way do i want anyone to bypass the people in order to get into a position that is supposed to serve the people - but that's exactly how the dollar rolls these days.

the police 'tactics' - what are they? bullying? torture?

as far as i can see, the ends will generally not justify the means.

This seems to be the philosophy of our wonderful Trumpanse in Cheif, e.g, the damn wall. The wall is so important, it's OK to lie about it to everyone. Wait, he lies about everything. No, thinks me the means must be justified, otherwise the end is unjustified.

To difficult to answer without the knowing the situation. I would steel a rope to save a life as anm example

If you need to lie and scam etc to get the position then your probably not good enough for the position anyways