That is one point of view, and a valid one, as well.
It does, however, presume a world of forces and goals or, as Ron says, ends and means, without considering a world of agents, in Freudian terms but also I think in terms of grammar and linguistics, a world of subjects and objects.
Not only are there ends and means, but folks use them on each other. That means that people have to make choices not only of the ends but of the means to accomplish them.
What happens the next time somebody asks your permission to be "brutally honest" if you don't give it?
What if you say instead, "No, thank you; I'd rather you thought of a clear, concise and kind way of conveying the same message. It may take a little more thought, but I'll wait"? How many messages might be given different means? In fact, Ron and I have had this discussion, or a variation of it, several times about my difficulties in extending my consciousness about this into my prose. And here it is emerging as a piece of actual ethical discussion as at least a facet of the topic.
Curiously enough, Bob Kaven