Por Bruno Trindade
Is man always an end, or can he be treated as a means? I want to argue, with limited
scope, that the dignity of man does not allow him to be used as a means. Furthermore, I
hope to present and analyze a factor that promotes the social and practical degradation of
man’s ontological quality. For this task, I will use three theories/concepts from three
authors who, apparently, have little dialogue: Leonardo Polo, Michael Sandel, and Gilles
Deleuze. The first part will relate to the ethics presented by Polo; after that, we will
analyze how money and the society of control can subvert and make impossible temporal
ethics in Polo’s mold. We will also try to produce preliminary correlations with
organizations.
Leonardo Polo, aligning himself with the ethics of virtues, finds in human existence and
ethics a teleological root, that is, an end for man naturally tends towards, and actions are
justified. The author introduces man as an essentially temporal being, and as such, he
must use time to his advantage in the pursuit of flourishing and telos. From this
anthropology, we understand that actions are good and correct if they bring man closer to
his ideal of spoudaios. Since man necessarily lives in time, ethics is “Not wasting time,”
that is, dealing well with temporally located activities, contexts, and fortunes, with the
perspective of teleological perfectibility.
Polo also speaks of ethics as a reinforcement of natural tendencies that move towards
human flourishing; to live ethically is to grow. “A living being that grows does not waste
time, but uses time to its advantage” (Polo, 2025). Finally, in view of the continuation of
my argument, I must highlight the most relevant premises: to be ethical is to use time
well; to use time well is to grow as a man; to grow as a man is to approach perfectibility;
For this reason, man is always an end and never a means, that is, all individual or social
actions that diminish dignity and his faculties are evil.
It seems evident that contemporary society does not, broadly, possess this ideal of ethics;
the causes of this are diverse and very varied; however, I want to draw attention to
Michael Sandel’s insightful analysis of the subversive power of the logic of money over
socially constituted values, which I understand to be essential for human flourishing.
The market has its own way of being, with its mechanisms and structures, among the
notable characteristics we have: equating utility with demand, absence of valuation in
monetary calculation, and a tendency towards profit maximization. This logic works very
well in a limited and specific environment. What Sandel draws attention to in his work is
the value-independent environments of the market logic that are infected by it and
overtaken by a structure that is foreign to their own values and intricately linked to
practice. For example, the rationale behind the existence of the “queue” is simple and
known to all: equality and justice through an order of arrival, except in preferential cases;
Sandel presents places, such as Disney and other amusement parks, where it is possible
to buy a “skip-the-line” pass; therefore, the institution of the “queue” completely loses its
value of social equanimity, in which everyone was treated equally. Market logic, as in the
case of the queue, destroys the value previously cultivated and introduces the rationality
of supply and demand.
What do I want to convey with Sandel’s elaboration? I simply want to show how market
logic is sometimes detrimental to values relevant to human flourishing, such as justice,
solidarity, and honor, and is always insensitive to the telos of man, since it reacts to only
one incentive: that of monetary maximization. Sandel goes even further and equates the
market to a structure that uses human sins, which may seem strong, but is not new to those
who study marketing. Therefore, for a man with a temporal ethical structure, becoming
inflamed by market rationality is very harmful in view of the pursuit of making good use
of time to grow and develop human faculties.
In the same way that we can observe contemporary Western society by the ever
increasing predominance of market rationality, it is possible, from another
complementary perspective, to describe society in the manner of Deleuze, that is, based
on control. To better understand control societies, it is beneficial to compare them with
the societies that preceded them, the disciplinary societies. The former were characterized
by the discipline of actions, manners, clothing, and language; the boundaries between
activities were very well defined, man was a producer of discontinuous energy, that is, he
worked in the appropriate environment and stopped when he moved to another
environment, such as from the factory to the home. Control was exercised through orders,
laws, and coercion; the quintessential institution of disciplinary society is the prison, from
which other organizations draw inspiration, such as schools, the army, and factories.
The control society, far from seeking to weaken power over man, possesses another mode
of action, more subjective, symbolic, and effective. Deleuze says that:
“The man of discipline was a discontinuous producer of energy, but the
man of control is rather undulating, functioning in orbit, in a continuous
beam. Everywhere surfing has already replaced the old sports.”
Therefore, man embedded in a control society is in his own temporal social structure, in
which there is little limitation between activities, effort is continuous, and
competitiveness is overwhelming. Therefore, the speed and ordering of activities occur
in a differentiated way, which is relevant and central to man as a temporal and ethical
being. In the control society – as presented by Charles Taylor – an important variable is
the overvaluation of authenticity and individuality, which apparently seems to contrast
with control; however, man is used as a means within a logic of productivity and sales.
As Deleuze presents it when discussing the difference between the factory and the
company:
“But in a society of control, the company has replaced the factory, and
the company is a soul, a gas. Undoubtedly, the factory already knew the
system of bonuses, but the company strives more profoundly to impose
a modulation for each salary, in a state of perpetual meta-stability,
which involves challenges, competitions, and extremely comical
colloquiums. If the most idiotic television games are so successful, it is
because they adequately express the situation of the company. The
factory constituted individuals into a single body, to the double
advantage of the employers who watched over each element in the
mass, and of the unions that mobilized a mass of resistance; but the
company constantly introduces an inexpiable rivalry as healthy
emulation, an excellent motivation that pits individuals against each
other and traverses each one, dividing him within himself. The
modulating principle of “merit-based pay” tempts even national
education: in effect, just as the company replaces the factory, lifelong
learning tends to replace the school, and continuous control replaces…”
“The exam. This is the surest way to hand the school over to the
company.”
What I want to highlight from the formulation of the control society is the alienating
character it can promote in man. The alienated man is the one who acts without knowledge
of his ends. Within the perspective of the control society, it is easy to observe how it is
possible for man to integrate values of market logic and control uncritically, thinking they
are his own values, judged and reflected upon. In relation to temporal ethics, it is evident
that man must possess knowledge of his environment and his motivations for action, in
addition to the ends pursued; for it is implausible that the individual can make good use
of time for growth in pursuit of flourishing if he does not have awareness and
intentionality in praxis.
Furthermore, market logic and the control society have structures that make it impossible
for those who act in accordance with them to think of man as an end and not as a means.
Both market logic and the control society tend to disenchant the world, not in a fantastical
sense, but in the gradual loss of qualitative distinctions between superior and inferior,
between man and object. I do not want, in any way, to suggest solutions to such complex
issues. However, it seems clear to me that lived time (Kairos) is faster and more fleeting,
and therefore, man needs to slow down in some way to be able to think, reflect and
deliberate on his own actions.
“No one is ever more active than when they are doing nothing; no one is ever less alone
than when they are with themselves” (Cato, the censor).
