Many philosophers today believe that happiness is the only important thing in people’s lives; it’s all that matters. Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, argues against Utilitarians and Hedonists, claiming that happiness is not the only factor of significance and that the value of pleasure is rooting it its “felt” qualities. Nozick poses the idea that there is an Experience Machine, and this machine could give you any experience you desired. Neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel like you were doing something amazing, something that made you really happy. Rather than this being reality, you are actually simply floating in a tank with electrodes attached to your brain. While you are in the tank, you will think that your experience is a reality- you won’t know that it is fake. Nozick poses the question, would you plug into the Experience Machine? What else could ever matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?
Nozick responds that he believes that most humans would absolutely decide against plugging into the machine. Nozick argues that we want to do certain things, not just have the experience of doing them. It is only because first we want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them. We want to be a certain way, be a certain sort of person. Plugging into the experience machine leaves us with no answer to the question of what a person is like who has been in the tank for a lifetime. Plugging into the Experience Machine limits us to an artificial reality, to a world no deeper or more important than that which a man can construct. In the Experience Machine, there is no contact with a deeper existence, even though the experience of it can be simulated. Many people in the world desire to leave themselves open to such communication and to a creation of a complex significance. Ultimately, Nozick notes that we learn that something matters to us in addition to experiences by encouraging us to imagine an experience machine, and then realizing that we would in fact not choose to use it.
Nozick argues against the idea that happiness is all that matters, a view commonly held by Utilitarians and Hedonists. Nozick states that aspects of living, such as wanting to do things, who we are, and craving contact with a deeper reality, are stripped away when you plug into the machine. All of these aspects of living are ignored by utilitarians who focus on what causes you and others pleasure. Nozick emphasizes that wanting to stay in touch with reality implies that we want more than simply the happiness that the machine would be able to supply. We crave truth, including the hardships and the struggles that make happiness distinct from other emotions. We cannot ignore the people we are, our motivations and intentions, or the importance of seeking a deeper reality than the surface on which hedonism and utilitarianism operate. In many cases, we, as humans, would not rank pleasure as the most essential thing in our lives. Nozick holds that the meaning of life, and the meaning of morality, are deeper and more complex than utilitarianism would imply.
Additionally, Nozick addresses and defends the idea that the value of happiness is in its “felt” qualities. He establishes pleasure as a feeling that is desired because of its sensible qualities. Whatever we think of those felt qualities and however we characterize them, pleasure seems like an appropriate explanation for those things we wish to feel. This definition of pleasure is useful because it makes no judgment about what we desire. While Nozick backs the claim that pleasure is valued because of how it makes people feel, he also states that happiness is not the only intrinsic value we have. If it were, then we would have an overriding reason to plug into the machine, because it would produce an abundance of favorable sensations, primarily pleasure.
Many philosophers define happiness in relation to contentment, joy, fulfillment, pleasure, satisfaction, tranquility, or peace. Meanwhile, Aristotle rejects all of these ideas. Aristotle claims that all living things have souls because souls are a functionality of the body and all things have functionality. He holds that the difference between humans and everything else in the world is that humans can reason. Aristotle says happiness is the highest good, something that is desired for its own sake and not for anything else. He defines happiness as the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Happiness to Aristotle is human flourishing. According to Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” and his view on what it is to be human, plugging into the machine is not a desirable choice for him. Aristotle raises the idea of function, a characteristic task and activity of humans. Since to him happiness is a virtuous activity of the soul, plugging into the machine for a lifetime is not an activity at all. Plugging into the machine implies the desire of an outcome rather than the development or performance. One plugging oneself into the device simply experiences the thing but does not do the deed. The conception of virtue raised by Aristotle suggests that one’s goodness and proficiency are considered to lie in the performance of that function, rather than the outcome.
Immanuel Kant is another influential philosopher who would not choose to enter the Experience Machine. Kant believes that good will is the only thing that’s good without qualification. A person exhibits goodwill when a person does what morality requires simply because morality demands it. Kant regards morality as supremely normative and something that is always a sufficient reason for action, because it is right in all possible circumstances. People are endowed with a dignity beyond all price, and we must never be treated as a means, always treated as an end in yourself. Humans are not merely a means to one’s end, while objects are simply means to one’s purpose. Kant’s fundamental principle of morality is the categorical imperative, and it states that we must only act on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. Kant would not plug into the experience machine because one cannot will plugging into the machine to be a universal law. Since you cannot will connecting into the machine to be a universal law, it would not be acting on goodwill to engage with it.
Thirdly, Jean-Paul Sartre would decide against plugging into the experience machine as well. Sartre holds firm on the basis that, contrary to Aristotle’s views, existence precedes essence; we are the sum of our experiences. We have choice, we have subjectivity, and we choose what we will make ourselves to be. We as humans are entirely responsible for our existence. Sartre emphasizes living authentically. We are the sum of our choices, meaning that we define ourselves through the choices that we make. Sartre values characterization and who we are, supporting Nozick’s claim that a reason that we wouldn’t plug into the experience machine is that we want to be a particular sort of person. Plugging into the Experience Machine limits us to a human-made reality where it would be difficult to define ourselves due to the lack of choices to be made and the lack of things to do, rather than merely experience.
Ultimately, Nozick holds that we actually want to do things in reality, not just have the experience of doing them. He claims that we want to be a certain way, and a person just floating in a tank for the rest of their life would not be able to express real, humanly characteristics that we value so much. Lastly, Nozick claims that we wouldn’t enter the Experience Machine because doing so would limit us to a synthetic reality. Without any real contact with our surroundings, other people, or anything of more profound significance, our world would be abhorrent to us.