This seems like a good approach to solving ethical dilemmas. No guarantee of the best answer though. Thoughts?

quote "Generally speaking, there are two major approaches that philosophers use in handling ethical dilemmas. One approach focuses on the practical consequences of what we do; the other concentrates on the actions themselves. The first school of thought basically argues "no harm, no foul"; the second claims that some actions are simply wrong. Thinkers have debated the relative merits of these approaches for centuries, but for the purpose of getting help with handling ethical dilemmas, think of them as complementary strategies for analyzing and resolving problems." http://www.lmu.edu/Page27945.aspx

I'll try this approach next time, if I remember.

Deontological and ontiological perspectives i think they're called.

or consequentialism (outcome based, 'the end justifies the means') and non- consequentialism (action based 'some things are wrong, regardless of consequence').

I think both ways of thinking are right in some instances however I tend to favour consequentialism.