To speak with Hegel, as in his Phenomenology and his Philosophy of Law, you are adressing a certain feature of normal development being stuck in a certain stage:
Ideals and presumably moral principles are, as @NelsonAlexander stated, not achievable per se. They are "mere perceptions", not necessarily perceptions of a certain being/achievable status. That is what brings Hegel to state that these principles/abstracts/thoughts are one-sided, as they have the reality as their negative.
What has to follow is therefore to revoke this negativity by instating a certain being (Dasein) that is concrete (one-sided), but only as an instance of the abstract concept (Begriff).
To apply this to your objection, it means that it is in fact foolish to have concepts/ideals/moral principles where no concrete actions can be subsumed under. Like the person that has the ideal to fly like a colobri. This is an empty perception.
But in another sense, values/ideals/morals cannot be achieved by definition, that is, put into concrete being as they are. Only as instances, as defectives.
BUT, as an objection against a too narrow understanding of this (not against Hegel himself), Otto Lilienthal (and, hundreds of years before him, Leonardo da Vinci) is a perfect example of someone who was inspired by the ideal of being able to fly. As long as your values/ideals/morals are as abstract as they should be, there is enough room for realization. The counterexample has been "able to fly like a colobri", which presumably is impossible, at least at our technical level.
If we do not make this difference, it is not possible to make a difference between values/ideals/morals and "the end of a concrete action" (direct or indirect) anymore.