← See the axis · Criterion of right action

Never a mere means

A person has a dignity, not a price: one cannot treat them as a mere means, whatever good might be got from it.

Supports Deontologism

Kant · Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Second Section

1. There is a difference between things, which have a price and can be replaced, and persons, who have a dignity: they are worth something as ends in themselves, not for the service got from them.
2. To use someone as a mere means, to sacrifice them, deceive them, instrumentalize them 'for the good', is to deny that dignity, to reduce them to a useful thing. The gain obtained does not redeem that denial.
3. Some acts therefore carry this violation in themselves, independently of their happy outcomes: what makes them unjust is not their balance sheet, but what they do to the person.

Therefore So the right action is the one that conforms to duty, to principles valid for all and respectful of each as an end; and some prohibitions, such as treating another as a mere means, hold whatever the cost.

How far does this reasoning convince you?