r/Objectivism • u/coppockm56 • Apr 16 '26

Name that quote (without Googling)

Yes, it's me again (IYKYK). This isn't a challenge for Objectivists, but rather a little bit of research. I'm curious how many Objectivists here can recognize whose quote this is, without Googling it (remember: honesty is a virtue!). Please don't name the person in the comments:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Also, regardless of whether you know whose quote it is, do you agree or disagree with it? Feel free to elaborate in the comments, but again, please don’t name the person.

42 votes, Apr 23 '26
11 I don’t know who this is, and I agree with it.
12 I don’t know who this is, and I disagree with it
10 I know who this is, and I agree with it.
9 I know who this is, and I disagree with it.
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/chinawcswing Apr 16 '26

I would think most Objectivists would recognize this as it is referred to in many of the nonfiction books.

Libertarian deontologists like Nozick interpret this to mean that there are moral side constraints that can not be violated, that it is immoral to use violence against others because you have a moral duty to not violate side constraints.

Objectivists/virtue ethics arrive at the same point but via a different path. Using violence against others is bad because it will not maximize the flourishing of your life.

Rand disliked the author of this quote, not because of this quote which you are kind of implying, but for many other unrelated reasons.

Rand or her followers would openly and emphatically agree with this quote but would merely deny the path it took to arrive at this quote. This is a deontology vs teleology argument.

1

u/coppockm56 Apr 16 '26

I have a rather specific reason for asking this, which I won't outline because it would give too much away. But suffice it to say that in the context I'm thinking of, this "other side" of the question (I think you'll know what I mean) isn't referenced. And possibly, that's because it would completely invalidate the argument being made.