What is the difference between individualism and egoism

If they both happen to confess, they each serve 5 years each, or 10 years between them. For the game, the optimal solution is assumed to be the lowest total years served, which would be both refusing to confess and each therefore serving 2 years each.

The probable outcome of the dilemma though is that both will confess in the desire to get off in 6 months, but therefore they will end up serving 10 years in total.

This is seen to be non-rational or sub-optimal for both prisoners as the total years served is not the best collective solution. Nonetheless, it can be countered that the nature of the game artificially pre-empts other possibilities: the sentences are fixed not by the participants but by external force the game masters , so the choices facing the agents are outside of their control. Although this may certainly be applied to the restricted choices facing the two prisoners or contestants in a game, it is not obvious that every-day life generates such limited and limiting choices.

More importantly, games with such restricting options and results are entered into voluntarily and can be avoided we can argue that the prisoners chose to engage in the game in that they chose to commit a crime and hence ran the possibility of being caught! Outside of games, agents affect each other and the outcomes in many different ways and can hence vary the outcomes as they interact — in real life, communication involves altering the perception of how the world works, the values attached to different decisions, and hence what ought to be done and what potential consequences may arise.

Firstly, the collective outcomes of the game can be changed by the game master to produce a socially and individually optimal solution — the numbers can be altered. Secondly, presenting such a dilemma to the prisoners can be considered ethically and judicially questionable as the final sentence that each gets is dependent on what another party says, rather than on the guilt and deserved punished of the individual. At a deeper level, some egoists may reject the possibility of fixed or absolute values that individuals acting selfishly and caught up in their own pursuits cannot see.

Rand exhorts the application of reason to ethical situations, but a critic may reply that what is rational is not always the same as what is reasonable.

This criticism may, however, turn on semantic or contextual nuances. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action. Opponents of ethical egoism may claim, however, that although it is possible for this Robinson Crusoe type creature to lament previous choices as not conducive to self-interest enjoying the pleasures of swimming all day, and not spending necessary time producing food , the mistake is not a moral mistake but a mistake of identifying self-interest.

Presumably this lonely creature will begin to comprehend the distinctions between short, and long-term interests, and, that short-term pains can be countered by long-term gains. In addition, opponents argue that even in a world inhabited by a single being, duties would still apply; Kantian duties are those actions that reason dictates ought to be pursued regardless of any gain, or loss to self or others. Further, the deontologist asserts the application of yet another moral sphere which ought to be pursued, namely, that of impartial duties.

However, the Cartesian rationalist could retort that need not be so, that a sentient being should act rationally, and reason will disclose what are the proper actions he should follow. In complying with ethical egoism, the individual aims at her own greatest good.

In a typical example, a young person may see his greatest good in murdering his rich uncle to inherit his millions. According to detractors, conflict is an inherent problem of ethical egoism, and the model seemingly does not possess a conflict resolution system.

The ethical egoist contends that her theory, in fact, has resolutions to the conflict. The first resolution proceeds from a state of nature examination. If, in the wilderness, two people simultaneously come across the only source of drinkable water a potential dilemma arises if both make a simultaneous claim to it. With no recourse to arbitration they must either accept an equal share of the water, which would comply with rational egoism. But a critic may maintain that this solution is not necessarily in compliance with ethical egoism.

Arguably, the critic continues, the two have no possible resolution, and must, therefore, fight for the water.

This is often the line taken against egoism generally: that it results in insoluble conflict that implies, or necessitates a resort to force by one or both of the parties concerned. However, ethical egoism does not have to logically result in a Darwinian struggle between the strong and the weak in which strength determines moral rectitude to resources or values.

For example, instead of succumbing to insoluble conflict, the two people could cooperate as rational egoism would require. Through cooperation, both agents would, thereby, mutually benefit from securing and sharing the resource. War is inherently costly, and, even the fighting beasts of the wild instinctively recognize its potential costs, and, have evolved conflict-avoiding strategies.

On the other hand, the ethical egoist can argue less benevolently, that in case one man reaches the desired resource first, he would then be able to take rightful control and possession of it — the second person cannot possess any right to it, except insofar as he may trade with its present owner.

Of course, charitable considerations may motivate the owner to secure a share for the second comer, and economic considerations may prompt both to trade in those products that each can better produce or acquire: the one may guard the water supply from animals while the other hunts. Such would be a classical liberal reading of this situation, which considers the advance of property rights to be the obvious solution to apparently intractable conflicts over resources.

However, an ethical egoist may respond that in the case of the rich uncle and greedy nephew, for example, it is not the case that the nephew would be acting ethically by killing his uncle, and that for a critic to contend otherwise is to criticize personal gain from the separate ethical standpoint that condemns murder.

In addition, the ethical egoist may respond by saying that these particular fears are based on a confusion resulting from conflating ethics that is, self-interest with personal gain; The ethical egoist may contend that if the nephew were to attempt to do harm for personal gain, that he would find that his uncle or others would or may be permitted to do harm in return. Consequently, the ethical egoist is unfairly chastised on the basis of a straw-man argument.

Though interaction can either be violent or peaceful, an ethical egoist rejects violence as undermining the pursuit of self-interest. A third conflict-resolution entails the insertion of rights as a standard. This resolution incorporates the conclusions of the first two resolutions by stating that there is an ethical framework that can logically be extrapolated from ethical egoism.

A final type of ethical egoism is conditional egoism. This is the theory that egoism is morally acceptable or right if it leads to morally acceptable ends. For example, self-interested behavior can be accepted and applauded if it leads to the betterment of society as a whole; the ultimate test rests not on acting self-interestedly but on whether society is improved as a result.

The theory of conditional egoism is thus dependent on a superior moral goal such as an action being in the common interest, that is, the public good. The grave problem facing conditional egoists is according to what standard ought the limits on egoism be placed?

In other words, who or what is to define the nature of the public good? If it is a person who is set up as the great arbitrator of the public, then it is uncertain if there can be a guarantee that he or she is embodying or arguing for an impartial standard of the good and not for his or her own particular interest.

If it is an impartial standard that sets the limit, one that can be indicated by any reasonable person, then it behooves the philosopher to explain the nature of that standard. Collectivists then attempt to explain what in particular should be held as the interest of the group. Inevitably, however, conflict arises, and resolutions have to be produced. Normative egoism, however, engages in a philosophically more intriguing dialogue with protractors.

Normative egoists argue from various positions that an individual ought to pursue his or her own interest. Mistakes in securing the proper means and appropriate ends will be made by individuals, but if they are morally responsible for their actions they not only will bear the consequences but also the opportunity for adapting and learning.

When that responsibility is removed and individuals are exhorted to live for an alternative cause, their incentive and joy in improving their own welfare is concomitantly diminished, which will, for many egoists, ultimately foster an uncritical, unthinking mass of obedient bodies vulnerable to political manipulation: when the ego is trammeled, so too is freedom ensnared, and without freedom ethics is removed from individual to collective or government responsibility.

Alexander Moseley Email: alexandermoseley icloud. Normative Egoism The second variant of egoism is normative in that it stipulates the agent ought to promote the self above other values.

Conditional Egoism A final type of ethical egoism is conditional egoism. References and Further Reading Aristotle. Nichomachaean Ethics. Various translations available.

Book IX being most pertinent. Baier, Kurt. Peter Singer. Blackwell: Oxford. Feinberg, Joel. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Garvin, Lucius. A Modern Introduction to Ethics. Houghton Mifflin: Cambrirdge, MA, Hargreaves-Heap, Shaun P. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. Routledge: London, Holmes, S.

Life and Morals. Egoism talks about self-interest as the motivation of individual action. Individualism stresses the primacy of individual rights in society. See the US Declaration of Independence. Contrast this with Collectivism defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. Sign up to join this community.

The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. What is the difference between "individualism" and "egoism"?

Ask Question. Asked 4 years, 10 months ago. Active 4 years, 10 months ago. Viewed 5k times. Individualism is it is about freedom of individuals with an egoistic nature and behaviour that is positive in not being selfishness or selflessness.

There is confusion about ethical egoism in that some people fail to recognise that the ego can extend beyond one's self in practising altruism for the personal benefits it can give. Improve this question. James P. This is potentially an interesting question, but I think it's likely to be closed for failure to show your research unless you can cite a couple of relevant definitions and then briefly explain why they don't help you understand the different between the two terms.

Please consider adding something along those lines to your question. SvenYargs hope the current edit more than fufils the requirement. This is an interesting question, but has gone beyond simple dictionary semantics and crossed over into what I think is philosophy.