Question Everything Or Die Ignorant.

Anyone who has been following this blog for a long period of time should know of my fascination with the ends and the means of an action. When it comes to morality and ethics, I often question which one is more important in defining if an action is moral (if morality were to be/is universal, that is). I’d like to say that the end does not justify the means, that the consequences aren’t necessarily going to make an action more correct. For example, if one were to kill someone so as to free another person from oppression. It would seem like this is justified because it is to free another person, yet to kill someone because they oppress another would make the statement that it is right to kill if one could free another..even though by doing so you are ending the liberty of another person. I suppose it all goes down to the idea of innate natural rights in this case. Some would say since the individual was oppressing another individual (therefore violating their natural rights, liberty in particular) that they would forfeit their natural rights. However, even though this may work on a justice stance, does that necessarily make it moral? For if one individual’s natural rights, such as the right to life, can be taken away how can there be a guarantee for any natural rights? There could not be a guarantee in the way I view it. But one would say that the means would be justified by the end goal, yet the way they reach the ends would be immoral in itself, since one must value life, all life, or they cannot value anything. I feel as if I’m going on a Kantian rant to some extent, or at least influenced.