Contrary to many other comments, I would say no. It doesn't even depend on anything. The means are only justified if there are no better options left. Killing a dictator is not justified if you could also imprison him. So the ends should have nothing to do with the justification but only the weighing of the alternative actions you might take. But this only answers the first question. Those three are not the same. Your second question I would also answer no, but I would need a different reasoning because of the word 'necessary', which means there would be no options left. So why no? Because of the unpredictability and complexity of the world. Your actions might lead to bad consequences that you not only might not want but that would stop you even from achieving your goal. So I would advise you to reconsider your goal if what is necessary is too extreme. There might be a less extreme goal that could be achieved easier and new options might arise in the future, which change the whole equation. If everything was predictable my answer would be yes in case the goal really is worth it.
Now to your third question. There I would join the others in saying that it depends. Is it necessary or are there better options? Is the help the others get even worth it? How much pain/discomfort do the few have to suffer?

Situational ethics.

It is more of what you can live with. You keep blurring the line of right and wrong and soon enough there is no line. So the answer for everyone is not justifiable but acceptable. And that can be bad for those who have not made the choice. In short maybe.

It goes by a case by case basis I feel. Hurting a few nazis to save millions of Jews is an example where it makes sense to me.

now now, you shouldn't be talking to lara trump. she's a bad influence.

g

Here we go, utilitarianism vs deontology debate again (and all the trolley dilemas).

Go for the roots of those ideas instead discussing the consequences.
making the question the way you do it will generate opinion debate that won't be conclusive. But discussing what and why those 2 visions exist will give you more clarity.
The answer in general is: It varies.
Depend the size of the crisis, depends the time slice that you are analyzing, depends the possibility of your plans go wrong and not generating all the benefits you want. Depend on how much reaction can happen etc etc etc.
And depend the moral code you decide to follow who you consider your inner tribe, extended tribe and foreigners. What is absolute and what can be relative for you.
And the society around also.

If the intent is greater good for all, then yes, any means can be used. If all we are seeking is selfish gain, then no.

We are not perfect however, and often we are mistaken in our assessment. People get hurt. Think of a doctor who orders chemotherapy for a cancer patient. There is a chance the treatment will kill the patient, yet to do nothing might also bring death.
It’s not about morality but about analysis.

Ask Drump..he could careless if people are hurt by this shutdown..

A knotty one. In some cases it becomes clear. Allied bombing in WW2, cities like Dresden flattened but people being thrown into cattle trucks every day and then we have the A-bomb.
Vivisection, so many medical advances have been made by experiments on animals.
Blanket rules like "tho shall not kill" are very easy to say but less easy to live with. What about justifiable homicide? A mass shooter is shot dead by the SWAT team. We do not shed any big salty tears over his death?
Lets look at a subject closer to home, gun laws. I would ask pro gun members if a law could be proved 100% to save the life of one child is that worth it? Then increase the numbers 10? 100? 1,000? At what point do you say my rights are as nought compared to this?
Governments face this all the time. Take safety laws and regulations. This is the formula that they use;
Number of man hours lost by doing nothing / Cost of implantation.
eg. Theres a problem with cars rear ending trucks and riding underneath. This can be solved by re-enforcing the bar at the back of trucks but it will only save 200 lives a year on average. Do you retrospectively make all trucks fit stronger bars or just the new ones? In the end it comes down to the numbers.
The worst of this is the political cynicism that only lives that lose votes matter. How many have died in the middle east due to the west invasions and meddling? Yet they are not us so we don't care enough to call our leaders to account because its far away and they are mostly muslims.

It is likely that you have a (some) specific situation(s) in mind. You would have to give an example of what you are talking about before we could pronounce the either it (ends justify the means) does or it doesn't... you left us in the dark here.

It's the classic conundrum.

Superman would say no. To sacrifice even one along the way defeats the purpose.

Lex Luthor would say of course. In the long run only the ends matter.

I use a comic book characters because it really simplifies it. So ask yourself who you'd rather be Lex or Clark?

Sort of the classic trolley problem, hopefully with less lethal consequences. Questions about moral duties really reside within each individual. The ends certainly do not always justify the means. What it really means to be moral is not just to strive to do the right thing. It's to do that while also striving to do the right thing for your family and community. And not just in the present, this also applies to the future. My advice would be to re-analyze your situation and make smaller, incremental goals where your ends can certainly be achieved while simultaneously protecting yourself and others from any form of harm.

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. Listening to your conscience is, for me, the source of the answers in every situation. A conscience can be a real handicap when you're in competition with those who aren't constrained by such an affliction.

Short answer is no. Also the question you should ask yourself when you use the moral qualifier, "alright" is... alright to whom? and why do they get the power to choose your morality?

Give us an example. Otherwise it’s case by case. Generally I would say no, however I’m sure there could be many examples where it would be.

It depends on the end and the means.

I don't want to be responsible for others' outcome. If I can help, I will. If I am cursed with the ability to control, I won't.

The means are the ends in the making.

The means are also ends tho. Ends is a very perspective-based idea, so you're basically asking, "How important are my ends?"

Depends on the goal and how bad and how may you are hurting and if that is avoidable. Pretty much any large undertaking is going to go against the priorities of at least a few.

I just listened to the dark History of Gynecology on Behind the Bastards. Not OK. Im still gonna get my paps though. If I ever get a fistula I'll have it repaired.

It is a different question to ask if you would sacrifice a few to save many s in the examples given below, and to ask if it is okay to experiment on people you consider less important to develop medicines and treatments that might save millions in the future as was said of bastards like Josef Mengele and his ilk.
One immediate and definite, the other is a conscious choice made in cold blood and involving moral judgement of worth as to who is expendable and who is not.

"Is it alright to hurt a few in order to help many?"

Your questions are broad.
Do you mean like a train with no brakes coming down the tracks to a junction box which is controlled by some one who now has two options, allow it to proceed along its regular course and thereby run into an another train with hundreds of passengers on it, or send it over to the other set of tracks where four boys walking and would surly be killed if the train were diverted.

Those are good questions that man has struggled with for millions of years. I'm not sure there is a straight answer for the questions you have posted.