Nozick's Experience Machine Thought Experiment

Evaluation of Hedonism and Utilitarianism and approval of Nozick’s Experience Machine Thought Experiment

In the following essay, I will be discussing the similarities and differences that exist between the ethical philosophies of Hedonism and Utilitarianism, and how these moral theories relate to Nozick’s Experience Machine thought experiment. Both of these theories hold a fundamental value that is to find that which is “good” in their own ways, but slightly differ in the meaning of what the “good” is. Hedonism defines this value to be pleasure of the self, whereas Utilitarianism values the happiness of the greatest number of people, even if the self happens to be unhappy or ill-fated. Nozick’s thought experiment gives the reader the task

of asking themselves if plugging into a machine will give them happiness by having them experience anything they wish to experience. According to Hedonism, plugging into this machine will provide pleasure (being the ultimate goal), but it is argued that there are things that humans would like to experience themselves and thus stating that there are other things that matter more than just pleasure itself; on the other hand, Utilitarianism would argue that plugging in to this machine would only bring pleasure to oneself and not the broadest spectrum of people involved, such as family missing the person plugged in, who will be going through the consequences of the person not being with them, thus creating the opposite effect.
Hedonism is the ethical philosophy of seeking pleasure as the ultimate goal, and having pain as the absolute contrary value of it. According to Jeremy Bentham “Pleasure and pain dictate all human behavior”. This claim states that everyday human actions are motivated by the amount of pleasure or displeasure that is encountered by the person. More clearly, every decision made by every human being is made by balancing if option A or B will bring more pleasure or less pain. Humans as a race try to avoid pain as much as possible, not only physical pain but also psychological pain, thus arriving at this given theory. In an earlier text, Epicurus discusses that “one ought to do the good, and good is that which is pleasurable”. This statement is the basic concept of what Hedonism should be, the search of the “good” (pleasure), and avoidance of pain. Epicurus also states that there are necessary pleasures which derive from natural desires such as eating or sleeping, which are unavoidable, and also the existence of desires that are unnecessary to life such as sex or other vain longings that may be hard to obtain and thus cause some level of pain if one fails to get ahold of them. One can argue that living a life of pure success and pain-free situation would be the definitive way of life for any human being, but from the psychological stand point, one could say that living such a life would eventually create a world where the one is apparently nonchalant about his or her success, since life is only success and no failure exists, success would become plain and thus not very pleasurable.
Utilitarianism is a similar theory to Hedonism in the way that both seek the “good”, but utilitarianism seeks the good of the greatest number of people affected by its consequences.

The belief in this ethical creed is that everything is right in proportion to how much happiness it brings with it, and what is considered wrong is what produces the opposite of happiness. This way of thinking still holds the value of happiness as being pleasure and unhappiness as being pain, what differs from Hedonism is that utilitarianism seeks happiness for the masses. This answers Epicurus of “what a man ought to do?” with acting as so to yield the best results or consequences for the greatest number of people affected by the decision, even if this means to put oneself in an unfortunate situation. Utilitarianism is using “good” as a means to an end. Consequentialism is a large factor to take into account when talking about Utilitarianism, as the consequences of one’s actions must be measured against the happiness of the community, meaning that every action taken by the one must be reviewed to avoid bringing unhappiness to the community or largest amount of people. A quick example of this would be a situation where Person A knows a piece of information that would cause Person B to be unhappy; it is then up to Person A to possibly lie in order to maintain Person B’s happiness. At this point Person B would be seemingly happy, but what consequences would follow this kind of act? Will the person eventually find out Person A knew this truth? How would Person B feel? Thankful? Enraged? Will hiding this truth endanger Person B? This ethical approach is seen as the preferred for a utopian society as egoism is not supported, since it would most likely bring some sort of unpleasantry or unhappiness to some members of the community. For example, one could go out to dine and have a delicious stake dinner in a fancy restaurant, and then go out and enjoy a few drinks. Arguably this can be seen

as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, but to the utilitarian, one must consider that in order to have such steak dinner, a cow had to undergo the pain of being raised in a possibly crowded space, and then put to death in order for someone to cut it to pieces and then sale it as an expensive plate in a fancy restaurant, also the fact that the one is indulging in such feast, whereas possibly the money could have been used to help feed a less fortunate family. Adding more to this thought, one must measure the fact that consequences must be measured if one goes out to have some drinks and then possibly drive home afterwards.