Are you a consequentialist?

I can see the attraction to a consequentialist point of view. I struggle a bit with this. Can a happy ending justify an evil means?

I've read to articles over the last couple of days on this subject. One was about unmanned drones and one was about Hiroshima. With the innocents killed in Hiroshima, deliberately and with forethought. Is is less evil than soldiers going in with bayonets and individually killing or wounding all the innocents that were killed? Is it more acceptable if it's done from a distance or is it more evil because not much thought or reaction to consequences is seen from high in the sky or a base where the drone is released?

That wasn't just killing people. It poisoned the air,the ground, the water, the unborn,and future generations
>>
This really isn't a Hiroshima debate, it's a moral debate. As to whether the greater good that some think came from that was worth the evil that occurred.

I have ALWAYS lived by the motto - What we are is Gods Gift to US, what we become is our Gift to God!
I have even taught my children to believe that in life if you do the right thing making the right choices you have nothing to worry about.
It's the others who have to face the consequences of their actions because they CHOSE not to do the right thing - sad but true, and in the end they regret not thinking of the consequences of their actions
>>>
That wasn't the question. What criteria is used to make those decisions? Does the ends justify the means? Meaning if an evil act results in a satisfactory ending, does the ending justify the evil used to get there?

So we won that war,but poisoned the world.
How is that a good thing coming out of a bad thing?
>>
Nevermind