In order to ‘Explain and critically discuss hedonism’, I think it is important to first outline what hedonism actually is: an ethical theory which names pleasure as the ultimate good and true goal of human existence. Hedonists strive to maximize pleasure and minimize pain at all costs, believing it is one’s right to do whatever they can to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible. Jayson Raquino posited that Hedonists equate pleasure with utility, and believe it it’s the master of all humankind, the ultimate life goal. He stated that ‘decisions should only be made to further our pleasurable experiences and minimize our painful ones’ (Raquino, J Is Ignorance really bliss? 2016). Pleasure, according to Hedonists, is non-instrumentally good for you, meaning it is intrinsically good for you, regardless of anything else. This contrasts to something like money, which is instrumentally good for you, meaning that the money itself is not good but it leads to something that is e.g. happiness.
The above case introduces Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine which is possibly the most well-known objection to Hedonism. In his book ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’ (1974), he posits this thought experiment in which you are asked to imagine that you are hooked up to a machine. This machine effectively becomes your new life, as scientists stimulate your brain to induce pleasurable experiences in which you succeed in your dreams: as shown in the example of Pia living a happy and successful life as a research scientist and critically acclaimed artist: the exact same life as Kerin is experiencing in the real world. The machine stimulates the experience of whatever would make you happy, and bring you pleasure, whilst in reality, you are in a tank; the existence of which you are unaware of. A hedonist would argue that Pia’s life is identical to Kerin’s life in regard to well-being due to their equal hedonic levels and amount of pleasure. This is where Nozick’s objection begins.
Nozick used the Experience Machine to refute hedonism, claiming it was implausible for a life of someone living in a machine to have an equal hedonic level and equal value of well-being to someone living in the real world. For example, the live of Kerin as a successful artist, volunteer etc. has far more well-being and worth than Pia. I would agree with Nozick when he argues that living in reality is far more beneficial for our well-being. Many philosophers share this belief that life in the experience machine surely has lower welfare. The experience machine highlights the ignorance of some people, which fools them into believing they are leading a pleasurable life, when in fact they are ignoring the negative aspects of it. For example, the American philosopher Thomas Nagel gives the example of a businessman who believes he is living a positive and plentiful life, but in fact his colleagues dislike him, his wife is cheating, and his children don’t respect him. (Nagel, T, 1970: pg 76). The machine only creates pleasurable experiences, which is not a realistic representation of human existence.
Nozick himself provided three reasons not to plug yourself into the machine, again refuting the view of hedonists. His first point, was that we actually want to achieve certain goals and milestones, rather than simply having the experience of doing them. For example, Kerin is achieving her dreams, and ‘enjoys great health…springing out of bed’, whereas Pia simply experiences it. The Experience Machine contributes to a false way of living, which simply cannot be equal to that of one outside the machine. His second reason is about the type of person we want to be. Nozick argued that “someone floating in a tank, is an indeterminate blob” (Nozick, R: 1974, page 43). By plugging into the tank, you are removing yourself from society and have no real control over what is going on. Even though you believe you do, being in complete ignorance is surely not a way to live? His final reason draws on the other two points, by arguing that there is “no actual contact with any deeper reality” (Nozick,R: 1973, page 43). You are very limited, and not actually in contact with the real world. He argues that if that if the only thing that mattered was pleasure, then we would want to plug in, but we don’t, showing that there is more to well-being than pleasure and pain.
This point leads to the bite the bullet response to Nozick’s experience machine. This is the idea that the only way to object Nozick’s thought experiment, is to simply ‘bite the bullet’ and say you would want to plug in, claiming life would be better in the machine. In other words, accept the implications of Hedonism, but continue anyways.
Hedonists may also respond to Nozick’s experience machine with the argument from correlation. They have pointed out that there is a strong correlation between a person’s balance of pleasure and pain (what is known as their hedonic level) and their level of well-being, showing that Nozick may have overestimated the importance of other factors. One could argue that ‘the best explanation of correlation of Hedonic Levels and Well-being is that well-being is determined by pleasure/pain alone’ (Lecture). Nozick is unclear about how we realise that there is more to life than pleasure, leaving a lot of ambiguity.
However, this response could be contested by the possibility of imperfect correlation. Just because well-being is correlated with pleasure and pain, doesn’t mean that it is only correlated with them. There could quite possibly be a third factor that pleasure/pain are connected to which leads to well-being.
They may also respond by arguing that there are different types of pleasure, some of which have a greater contribution to your welfare.
Aside from Nozick’s Experience Machine, another main critique of hedonism is the Doctrine of Swine objection. This points out that there are distinctions between pleasures, which Hedonism fails to ignore. For example, someone who spends their time socializing with friends and having fun will have a more pleasurable experience than someone who is living but barely conscious. Hedonism would wrongfully argue that these lives are equally high in wellbeing. J.S Mill, a 19th century philosopher, introduced the idea of higher and lower pleasures, pointing out that hedonism fails to distinguish between pleasures; putting quantity over quality. Jeremy Bentham posits the contrast between pushpin and poetry, stating that poetry gives us a higher and more valuable pleasure than a simple game such as pushpin. A second example to illustrate this objection is the existence of immoral pleasures. We can easily say that a life spent gaining pleasure out of the suffering of others is immoral, yet surely a hedonist would have to accept this life, as the person is maximizing his pleasure and upkeeps their well-being.
A hedonist however could respond to this point by weighing up the long and short term effects of an action. For example, say someone got pleasure out of taking drugs; an act which is clearly bad for you and will, in the long term, result in pain or even death. By weighing up the amount of short term pleasure compared to the extreme pain that you will most likely endure in the long term, you can conclude that the act should not be performed.
Most objections to Hedonism take a common form, by arguing whilst hedonic levels may be equal in certain situations, levels of well-being certainly aren’t. For example, Pia who is in the Experience machine has a much lower level of well-being than Kerin even though their hedonic levels are the same. This attacks hedonism, because according to the theory, only your hedonic level matters. The objections target the claim that pleasure and pain are the only things that determine well-being.