Do Selfish Means Justify Communally Beneficial Ends?

Interesting study a friend of mine posted on Facebook recently.  It's about the movement of Emperor Penguins as they try to stay warm in their harsh Antarctic climate (read it here).  In essence, the penguins mob together, packed so tightly that those in the middle can't even move but also aren't losing virtually any body heat.  Those on the outside, however, are constantly moving, as those in the wind navigate the outside of the cluster, around and to the sheltered side.  Of course, this leaves for a brand new crop of penguins stuck in the wind, who also, in turn, work their around to seek shelter.  Ipso facto, the penguins who first worked their way around will be huddled more and more into the middle as those on the outside work their way around, until, finally, those same penguins that first waddled their way away from the wind are right back there again.

Now, the original post talked about how we can learn from the teamwork of penguins, as they look out for themselves, they contribute to a communal victory.  Even further, commentors on this post talked about the trust these penguins must have in one another, having faith that their turn in the middle was nigh, even speculating that these birds recognized the need for collaboration and so never make the attempt to force their way into the middle.

I, however, don't quite see it that way.

As the article itself mentions, the mob was packed so tightly that the middle birds couldn't even move.  Arguing that those on the outside see the community benefit so don't use force to get what they want is pretty much shot down from here, as I can't recall a single instance of a person attempting to escape East Berlin by throwing themselves (successfully) at the wall.  At the same time, I also can't help but wonder if those on the outside stopped moving, would those penguins nice and cozy in the middle be community-conscious enough to offer their warm spot to one on the wind side?  "Excuse me...it's really warm in there.  I mean, I was pretty much sweating and you're out here freezing your ass off.  Seriously, how can you even stand it?  It's like 30 below!  Here, take my spot."  Definitely.  And at this point, I would like to ask all the idealists out there reading this and scoffing at my pragmatism, thinking to themselves that it would totally happen like that when the last time they traded spots with a homeless person on a winter night...

By I digress.  What I see is selfish action, to each his own, trying to make it through the harsh tundra, wantonly using those around him to survive.  But it is through these self-serving actions that the entire is able to survive, something that might not be possible without this phenomenon.  So selfishness saved all of them.

So the questions is, do the ends justify the means?  If I act selfishly and it benefits the larger group, is that okay?  A mantra of Wilderness First Responder is "Look out for #1 (yourself) so you don't become #2 (the victim)."  i.e. Don't put yourself in a position to become injured, leaving two victims to rescue.  Selfish?  Kind of.  Necessary?  You bet.

So I still ask, does it matter?