Should There Be Utilitarians Be Hedonists?

Should Utilitarians be hedonists? That is, should they be aiming to promote pleasure for all affected by their actions? Discuss this question, considering one, or two, objections to hedonism.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarians should not be hedonists. Aiming to promote the most pleasure for the greatest number is unsuitable as the primary form of utilitarianism. I will focus on the Experience Machine thought experiment that Robert Nozick and Tim Mulgan have used to address the gaps in logic according to the hedonist philosophy. This question is an important one as if utilitarianism aims to be implemented as a normative ethic in legislation, this would have deep and broad implications on the way society is constructed, determined

Utilitarianism thus seeks to maximise utility for all who could be affected by an action. As to what constitutes ‘utility,’ hedonism argues that pleasure is the sole value that should be maximised, being the one intrinsic good. It is valuable for itself and the only value that can be simultaneously objective and unbiased by prejudice, religious views, and traditional notions of right and wrong. Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus supports the concept that pleasures can be weighed up against each other to minimise pain and promote pleasure. This forms the classical utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, which has a hedonistic nature. It is worth noting that utilitarianism is a broad term that encompasses more than hedonism, so there are alternatives like the objective list theory, which I will address

Originally a thought experiment by Robert Nozick, you would have the possibility of programming your life with the most desirable pleasures, and then plug into this machine while your physical body lies in a tank. You remain oblivious to the simulation, instead thinking of it as reality. (Nozick, 1974) Mulgan derived a logical formulation off this to complete a strong argument against hedonism. He argues that The Experience Machine proves hedonism is not be realistic with the choices people typically make, and many would choose not to enter this machine. They prefer reality. These people perceive something valuable that life in this immensely pleasurable machine would lack. Hence, if hedonism says that life there lacks nothing valuable, hedonism must be false. I agree with this premise, as the experiment shows that some important element is missing from a life of pure pleasure. The feeling of pleasure alone is not enough to create a life of true happiness; pleasure is associated with an experience and often fleeting, while happiness concerns overall quality of life and wellbeing. It contributes to but is distinct from happiness. Therefore, this disputes the hedonist’s philosophical claim that pleasure is the sole, intrinsic good in one’s