Kurt Meyer
Phil 1301
Prof. Linda Cox
11/17/2016
Plugging into the Experience Machine The experience machine, proposed by a contemporary philosopher Robert Nozick struck me as very interesting when I first read it. The experience machine explores the idea of what makes people truly happy and if physically participating in the experience matters. In the pages ahead I will explain Nozick’s insight on the experiment and how he uses it as an argument against Utilitarianism. I will also explain the ideas of John Stuart Mill and his ideas of Utilitarianism, and how he would most likely be for using the machine. I will begin with John Stuart Mill a large defender of Utilitarianism. To put it simply Utilitarianism is about finding happiness by performing actions that promote
…show more content…
As long as the machine does exactly what the machine says it should do, the experiences in the machine should have higher value than the experiences in the real world. Saying all this I do believe that anyone who follows the belief of Utilitarianism would most definitely use the experience machine, no questions asked. Now on to the creator of the thought experiment himself, Robert Nozick. Nozick’s view of the machine is a negative one, as he uses it as a tool to argue against Utilitarianism. He does admit that people may be happier in this world of illusion, but most people reject that world. Humans have a great desire to experience life and to be their own individuals. Nozick argues that if you use the machine, what makes you different from someone else using the machine? You are only experiencing these scenarios, so your personality and other traits have no stake in the machine. None of your individuality matters; you would just be a brain floating in a jar. Humans wish to fully experience life, satisfaction comes from overcoming adversity and seeing success on the other side. The journey is what
However, utilitarianism is not without its critics. One notable critique about the notion of hedonism, or the utilitarian concept that states that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only meaningful ends, is the thought experiment wherein there exists machine that can simulate any experience (Nozick 644). The “experience machine” would be able to cause the user to experience anything they choose, all while keeping them unaware that they are plugged into the machine. If “pleasure, and the freedom from pain are the only thing desirable as ends” (Mill 172) then it should not matter whethe...
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
Nozick’s thought experiment of the Experience Machine challenges hedonism and utilitarianism by suggesting pleasure is not our only priority. He argues this on the premises that if pleasure, or more specifically the experience of pleasure, is the only thing of importance then we will always choose the more pleasure inducing option. Thus he presents the experience machine, which would grant more pleasure than the outside world, and notes that the initial reaction of many to not want to plug in suggests the conclusion as outlined above. It will be shown that the limited ability Nozick has to counter the objection that doing and being are forms of experiencing, in contrast to his claim that we would rather act than experience, as well as the assumptions he makes in his arguments lead to his conclusion not necessarily being supported by his arguments.
In this essay I am going to argue that Robert Nozick’s experience machine does show that hedonism is false. Firstly I am going to define what the experience machine thought experiment is, then I am going to define hedonism. Then I am going to show how Nozick’s argument does in fact show that hedonism is false, and that we consider things other than pleasure and pain when considering value. After that I am going to respond to some objections. Firstly the objection raised by Felipe de Brigard, who says that our initial reaction to the experience machine might just be cognitive bias. I will say that De Brigard actually adds weight to Nozick’s argument. Secondly I will respond to the objection that the reason people dislike the experience machine
One of the main reasons humans would not devote their lives to this experience machine is because they would be giving up more than they were gaining. As humans we are constantly trying to be a certain sort of person. We all have differing traits and personalities which we spend much time discovering and refining for our entire lives. A person who enters into this machine is only, “someone floating in a tank as an indeterminate blob”. Humans are the only species that can be so vastly different from each other. Being this blob diminishes our perso...
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Mill, John Stewart. "Utilitarianism: John Stewart Mill." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 416-25. Print.
...ry. Some may reject it and have the objection that utilitarianism does not provide an effective way of life. Those who object may say that this moral theory is not good or specific enough, lacks a mention of full human potential and capabilities, and fails to address the special moral values of humans. Mill provides an effective response to those who doubt utilitarianism, and states that there is only one end (happiness) that humans aim for and that humans and humans alone are the only ones who can judge and experience all pleasures and qualities of life.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.