What is Hedonism? Hedonism is the view that the only intrinsically good thing is pleasure and the only intrinsically bad thing is pain. This means that everything that’s good in life is good either because it’s pleasant, aka intrinsic, or because it causes pleasure. Robert Nozick believes that pleasures are always intrinsically valuable but that there are other things than just pleasure that is intrinsically valuable. Nozick presented the world with his thought experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the validity of hedonism. Nozick, in the case of the Experience Machine, believes people should not plug into it while the hedonist believes that people should.
Robert Nozick was a professor of philosophy at Harvard University in Massachusetts. In 1974, he published Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In this work, he argued to defend the libertarian “minimal state” and prove its moral justification. In mentioning the experience machine and what entering entails, Nozick sheds light on what humans value in life just by whether or not he/she plugs in.
In the Experience Machine, we are limited to a manmade world, a world where we are restricted to what the human brain can construct. I believe that there is no reason to plug into this machine. Using the machine takes away from actually doing certain things and instead just gives us the experience of doing the things we want to do or makes us think we’ve done them. Similarly stated in Nozick’s article about The Experience Machine, as humans, we want to behave a certain way, to be a certain type of person. Someone who plugs in constantly, can make that person’s character foggy or makes it difficult to understand what kind of person they are. The point of Nozick’s argument is whether it would be rational for a person to plug in or not.
Nozick states that there are more things that matter to humans than just the way he/she feels. If internal emotional state is all that matters, why not plug in? Nozick states that humans want to do things, just without the experiencing of doing those things (Nozick 43). He argues that humans crave contact with a “deeper reality” (Nozick 43). This emphasis on staying in touch with reality implies that humans want more than just the happiness that the machine would be able to supply. Instead, humans crave the fabric of reality, including the hardships and the struggles that are specific to happiness.
“A second reason for not plugging in is that we want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person…Plugging into the machine is a kind of suicide. It will seem to some, trapped by a picture, that nothing about what we are like can matter except as it gets reflected in our experiences” (Nozick 43). Nozick believes that plugging in would lead to the death of life in the real world. Humans will never want to be reduced to man-made realism. Once someone enters the machine, he/she automatically is derived of contact with reality, accomplishments, and the basic human experience of life.
Nozick suggests, “what else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?” A hedonist would read this question as rhetorical, with “nothing” as the obvious answer. Nozick rejects hedonism in saying that perhaps what we desire is to live ourselves, in contact with reality. In truth, humans are not singularly concerned with what it is they do in life, but also with whom they become and are. In order for the human personality to properly development, one must experience true and real events that are not a result of a man-made machine. Humans hold the ability to reason and understand life in a way different from everything else in existence. As a result, humans understand that pleasure is not the only important thing, humans have real life goals which can only be experienced through reality, not a simulation. Nozick’s point appears to be that humans intrinsically value contact with reality. Humans value their mental states being truthful and experiences being genuinely of the world.
Nozick’s argument works if a person hopes to live an authentic life or aspires to be authentic. It must be taken into account that authenticity is reflected in the traits a person has, what they do, and in how genuine their experiences in the outside world are.
Nozick fails to consider other variants of his thought experiment. He seems to offer a once-only deal, where people can either choose to spend the rest of their life in the machine or refuse and live in reality. There are also possible confusions about the experience itself. The machine offers particular experiences in full detail, not only certain comforting sensations. Some believe these experiences could be challenging and to some extent, unpleasant. “A related but contrary worry is that experiences are in part constituted by their objects, and that you can, for example, only experience climbing Everest if you actually work your way up that particular mountain. But Nozick's idea is that you might at least seem to climb Everest and thus have at least the experience as of the real thing. So programme the machine, step inside, and it seems to you that you are actually there, struggling to the top of mountain, then feeling good, admiring the view. And then, as in reality, it seems that you’re aware of the cold, the dangers, the need to get down. It offers neither reality nor merely its broad effects, but a detailed seeming reality along with its seeming consequences” (Belshaw 3).
Nozick’s main arguments are that someone in the machine isn’t doing anything at all. Rather, that person is only having the experience, the inside look, of doing things. Someone in the machine isn’t acting as a person. Instead, he/she is seen as an “intermediate blob” whose actions are dictated by the experience machine rather than themselves. And finally, that person is not in contact with the world, only with a man-made virtual reality. From his argument, it is understood that if happiness were the only thing of value, then the question of whether or not to plug into the machine wouldn’t exist. Considering that the experience machine provides total happiness, a life in the machine wouldn’t be missing anything. But most believe that life inside of the machine would be missing something of value. This implies that happiness is not the only intrinsic value. A good life requires more than mere happiness. Most philosophers agree that knowledge, justice, love, life, virtue, beauty, friendship, and self-improvement, are all seen as having value in and of themselves.
There are two problems with hedonism. The first being that hedonism is not an informative guide to living “the good life”. Second is the paradox of happiness that hedonism presents. It promotes the idea that the more one tends to seek happiness, the more they tend to fall. Hedonism is self-serving, with the constant thought about how to maximize one’s pleasures, there’s no time for anyone or thing that isn’t an immediate source of pleasure. It makes some sense, time in this life is limited, and could end at any moment, so why not treat oneself with as much enjoyment, adventure, and experience as possible? But it is more than just enjoyment or having a good time. Hedonism seems to lead to a sense of meaninglessness and emptiness, it doesn’t incorporate important factors like a sense of purpose and meaning, positive thinking, a sense of accomplishment, and more.
In conclusion, the Experience Machine argument is meant to provide a case against hedonism. The argument is based on the belief that plugging-in would not be the best decision while hedonism believes that plugging in is the best decision. Robert Nozick provides substantial argument against the thoughts of a hedonist. His basis for not plugging in makes sense to most people.