Abstract

The work of five contemporary moral and political philosophers is examined with respect to an adequate form of individualism. The latter consists in the claim that the rights and good of one individual are as important as the next. It is argued that the positions of Jesse Kalin , Richard Brandt, Robert Wolff, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls are excessively individualistic since each of their positions neglects the importance of the rights and good of individuals other than the agent. An individualism consistent with the moral and political position of Immanuel Kant is shown to be acceptable, and that the important positions of Rawls and Nozick fall short of a proper Kantianism.