I'm doing it right now, I think. Withholding the truth about my uncle's passing to my father so he does not fall ill from the sadness. I remember when his mom died this year in September and I told him. His health went downhill. His blood sugar just shot up and his blood pressure was uncontrollable. It's heartbreaking not being able to be forthcoming but he can't know now. Does this count?
I wouldn't advocate for an "ends justify the means" method of achieving something good if it meant I'd be guilty of something entirely unethical. Like those women who sleep with their professor for a passing grade or the boss for a promotion. Whatever the outcome you still have to live with what you've done.
This seems like a self-contradiction to me. If the wrong is in the service of rightness, if the ends truly do justify the means, then the "wrong" isn't wrong at all; it's right. And the "unethical" isn't unethical at all, it's ethical. The only reason people would think they're doing something "wrong" for the sake of rightness is because aren't very intelligent and fail to think fully contextually. They just think in terms of certain types of actions being categorically wrong or right. So the answer is, yes.
Being unjust in the quest for justice is a bit different, it seems. I think you can do something unjust for the sake of justness. If you kill an innocent person for the greater good, for example (and by the way, this is just an example--I'm not sure I'm actually a utilitarian), then it remains unjust for the killed individual. And it might break my heart to do an injustice for the sake of justice. I'm not even sure if that's possible, on second thought.. not because the just ends causes the means to be just, but because the unjust means causes the ends to be unjust. Not because utilitarianism is illegitimate, but because "justice" is the wrong word here. It's hard to think of an example where an injustice could serve a greater justice--that would be really reaching/an unlikely scenario--but it's easy to think of a case where an injustice could serve the greater good, utilitarianistically speaking. But something being in service to the greater good doesn't necessarily imply being an instance of justice, per se, imo. Justice is more about balance, or, as Rachel Dawes put it, harmony.
Sure, we all have valuable goals and they are not equal in my personal preference and not equal in your preference. We all rank telling the truth high, but not higher than our personal existence, we like honesty but are willing to sacrifice it when our beloved leader tells us we are more important to him that the truth, we want to find justice, but not when our beloved one is accused. You always must chose and it is in general an unjust choice since you cannot eat the cake and donate it to others the same time. Truth is usually ranking very well down below most other things as can be seen in almost any election, in almost any choice of people.
Retrospring uses Markdown for formatting
*italic text*
for italic text
**bold text**
for bold text
[link](https://example.com)
for link