Problems of Individualism

By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher

As in Part 1, I explained the importance of individualism which I want to call the principle
of individualism (Le Principe dindividualisme), today I want to cover the problems of
the same. At first I have to repeat that individualism is the highest good that man achieved,
and therefore every human-being should live individual. To fully realize this, there has to be
complete freedom (La libert complte) that at first should only be ristricted by basic
ethics that I call La base de lhumanit. This basic ethics contain the protection of the weak
(children, elder people) and the helpless. However complete freedom ends where the free
action of other individuals could be endangered. Therefore laws that prohibit crimes such as
murder and robbery are very important. Although laws could be seen to restrict freedom, there
has to be a basic understanding of living and let live and therefore basic ethics. The
boundaries of restricting an individual have to be as narrow as possible which means that an
individual is to have the most possible freedom. This means that we have to distinguish
complete freedom from worldly chaos. Wordly Chaos is a world where no ethics and laws
exist and where people can hurt each other which leads to pain and misery which is against
freedom. Freedom is only complete with a minimum of basic ethics to protect the individual
by being restricted by another individual.
Morality and cultural values however are not included in basic ethics, since they differ from
culture to culture. This means: Basic ethics are rules that are accepted and treasured
despite cultural societies in any part of the world, mostly taught through religion or
mythology, that guarantees living peacefully in a healthy society which ensures
Complete Freedom and prevents Worldly Chaos.
No one is to be forced to act in a way that he does not like, such as being prohibited of free
speech, free clothing, free gathering, free dining, etc. But at the same time no one can be
forced. A vegetarian has the right to restrict himself by denying to eat meat. He should
however not force others to follow his example unless they do it voluntarily.
No one should be punished for representing himself in a way within Complete Freedom. As
mentioned in Part 1, a girl that prefers short pants is not to be denounced as prostitute or
labeled with words taken from animality. If she feels okay the way she dresses, then its fine
as it doesnt hurts others. In the same way, she is allowed to dress herself voluntarily in a
matter considered to be conservative by some.

Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 2)

-2-

___________________________________________________________________________
Problems of Individualism might appear when we judge others. Sartre, for example, taught
that man is not what he thinks of himself, but is defined by others. In his 1944 drama Huis
clos (No Exit; German: Die geschlossene Gesellschaft), there are three people that are locked
in one room in hell. Everyone of them thinks that he acted right, while the other two always
think that he acted wrong. As long as the others dont revise their opinion, they will never be
granted the gate to heaven. Only after arguing they confess their crimes and realize that there
is no exit for them.
In Sartres case, he chosed three characters that he morally convicted of wrong-doings. Joseph
caused his wife grief after being executed and therefore is in hell. Ins is a lesbian post clerk
that turned a woman against her husband. Estelle married an older man for his money while at
the same time having an affair with a younger man. None of the three really did a bad thing
with his deeds: Josephs wife died of grief, however it does not seem that he forced her to do
so. It was his wifes free decision to do so, so she acted within Complete Freedom. Ins made
her husband love another woman and as he was blind of love, he was killed by a tram. Ins
husband was uncareful, so why should it be her fault? He wasnt forced and therefore he acted
within Complete Freedom. The Case Estelle might be judged differently from culture to
culture and religion to religion, however both men being with Estelle acted freely in space of
Complete Freedom. Only the other two inmates have a different point of view and therefore
morally convict the other one. The conclusion is that the society decides how to regard an
individual, oneself has no decision over it.
I disagree Sartres theory, as the environment only knows a part of a human-being, but not
every kind of his facettes. This means that no one can really judge a person a hundred percent
objective. Environmental backgrounds such as culture, classes or even castes make a
judgement worse. The individual is caged. Rousseau already mentioned that man is born free
but chained anyways. We have to break those chains, by fully accepting an individual if he
acts within Complete Freedom, no matter whether we personally think of it good or bad and
no matter whether we would do the same or not. Only if we ensure Complete Freedom and
save the world from Worldly Chaos, we can ensure peace and solidarity (La saisie de la
paix et de la solidarit). At the same time we have to be tolerant. Any kind of denouncing
or violating people because of their skin colour, religion or sexual orientation is against
Complete Freedom. The Principal of Human Tolerance and Acceptance (Le Principe
humain de la tolerance et de lacceptance) has to be ensured to guarantee that no one is
suppressed. This also means that decolonisation and the right to define onself is a prior issue.

Timo Schmitz: Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and Religion (Part 2)

-3-

___________________________________________________________________________
Timo Schmitz, 04 February 2015
This article is Part 2 of the series Individualism between Moral and Virtues, Government and
Religion. Reprinting for ones own personal non-commercial use is allowed.
http://schmitztimo.wordpress.com