People-as-Ends Test
Reject choices that use a person merely to obtain money, status, or access
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 99%
Manson applies a principle he attributes to Immanuel Kant: never treat a person only as a means to another end, but also as an end in themselves. To use it, first state the external outcome being pursued—money, promotion, prestige, attention, access, or approval. Then identify whether another person is being deceived, manipulated, or valued only for delivering that outcome. Material information and meaningful choice are practical tests: a buyer cannot choose freely if a known defect is concealed, and a partner is being used if the relationship exists mainly to impress friends. Rewrite the decision so the people involved receive honest information, respect, and real value. If the instrumental treatment cannot be removed, reject the choice. Manson argues that the rule is practical as well as ethical because exploitative gains can destroy trust, repeat business, relationships, and reputation.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO. Mark Manson explains a rule from philosopher Immanuel Kant and applies it to sales, dating, manipulation, and long-term reputation.
Core principles
- 01A person has value beyond what they can provide
- 02Deception and manipulation convert people into instruments
- 03People should outrank money, prestige, attention, and status
- 04An ethical decision can also support durable trust
How to run it
- 1
Name the External End
State what you hope to obtain from the decision. Look beyond the immediate action to money, status, access, attention, approval, or convenience.
Pro tip If the answer is flattering, test a less admirable motive too.
- 2
Map the People
Identify everyone whose choice, labour, trust, money, or reputation contributes to that end. Include people affected indirectly.
Watch out Do not erase a stakeholder because they lack bargaining power.
- 3
Test Information and Choice
Ask whether each person knows the material facts and can make a meaningful choice. Concealment, lying, and manipulation are strong signs that someone is being used.
Pro tip Ask whether you would disclose the same facts if roles were reversed.
- 4
Put the Person Back
Change the offer, relationship, or action so it respects the person's welfare and agency. Provide real value rather than treating consent as an obstacle to overcome.
Pro tip In business, optimise for a customer who would willingly return.
- 5
Reject the Irreducible Exploitation
If the desired outcome still depends on deception or treating someone solely as an instrument, do not proceed. Accept the short-term cost of the refusal.
Pro tip Compare the immediate gain with the trust and reputation placed at risk.
Watch out A profitable outcome does not make the method ethical.
In the wild
Bartlett offers the example of a seller who knows a car is faulty but describes it as excellent to secure the sale. Manson says the seller is using the buyer as a means to money rather than respecting the buyer's ability to choose with the relevant facts.
→ The test rejects the deceptive sale despite its possible short-term profit.
Illustrative example: a software vendor learns that a prospect needs a feature the product lacks. Instead of hiding the limitation to close the quarter, the vendor explains it and recommends proceeding only if a workaround is acceptable.
→ The prospect retains informed choice, and the vendor protects long-term trust.
Common mistakes
Calling Any Exchange Exploitation
Mutual exchange can respect both parties. The problem is treating a person only as an instrument while disregarding their agency or welfare.
Using Good Intentions as the Test
A benevolent story does not repair concealed facts or manipulated consent. Examine the actual choice offered to the other person.
Checking Ethics Only After the Win
The test belongs before the sale, agreement, or relationship decision, not after the external reward has been secured.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for sales, hiring, management, partnerships, dating, and any choice with unequal information or power.
Not ideal for
It is not a complete substitute for law, professional ethics, safeguarding, or resolving genuine conflicts between people's interests.
From the transcript
“each person must never be treated only as a means to some other end”
“always put people first”
From the episode
The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A F*ck: Mark Manson