> False dichotomy. It can be both. I was about to agree, but then this is deeper than a simple binary. You are right if saying one could act towards another so

> False dichotomy. It can be both. I was about to agree, but then this is deeper than a simple binary. You are right if saying one could act towards another so as to benefit them and yourself. And, if so maximising the total utility that is utilitarianism. No dichotomy. However, and this why Kant's categorical imperative isn't utilitarianism, something cannot be both a means and and an end. A node in a tree cannot be both a parent and a leaf node.