Hmm. How do you draw a line between respect for standing up for morals vs. pragmatic action that drives results? I'm not criticizing the Tiananmen Square stude

Hmm. How do you draw a line between respect for standing up for morals vs. pragmatic action that drives results? I'm not criticizing the Tiananmen Square students -- I just spent a year in Beijing and I sympathize with their plight as much as you can imagine. But sometimes I think people are too quick to justify any action so long as it is done for honourable/high purposes, even to the point of setting themselves up to lose. For awhile now I've been wrestling with this balance between standing up for rigid moral codes vs. pragmatic getting-things-done. If you make something big and important happen, almost any means can be justified in retrospect. And if you do something with a high moral purpose, almost any pragmatic failure can also be justified in retrospect. What's more acceptable: justifying poor performance as 'honourable loss', or justifying questionable means with 'I made something important happen'?