One of the most common answers is that utility could be equated to pleasure. They seem to have sprang directly from Jeremy Bentham who spoke of a summum bonum maximum happinessof pleasure and pain as the two sovereign masters whose biddings the human being could not resist:
What role does the thought experiment play in his argument?
We are not willing to spend our lives in an experience machine. Therefore, experience is not the only thing we value. Consequently, there must be something we want something that we value separate from experience.
In this essay, you should briefly (and accurately) describe the Experience Machine (what is it, what is it offering, etc.). Explain why Nozick says that “plugging into the machine is a kind of suicide” (34). Robert Nozick objects hedonism, and uses the example of an experience machine to support his thought. Briefly, the experience machine is a made up idea that a hedonist would abide by, but a regular person would see the downfalls of only having pleasure. Robert Nozick's Experience Machine Thought Experim Essay. First, I’m going to state what Robert Nozick is trying to show, before laying out his argument through the Experience Machine thought experiment - Robert Nozick's Experience Machine Thought Experim Essay introduction. After that I am going to argue whether it is successful or not by providing arguments from both views, and finally.
After you lay out his argument, choose one premise to criticize. Nozick premises that everyone, or at least most people, are unwilling to spend their lives in an experience machine: If most everyone were unwilling to spend their lives in an experience machine, we would probably find lots of evidence for people fleeing things like the experience machine, and little evidence of people seeking things like the experience machine.
However, what we actually find in instances of proto-virtual reality, e. Therefore, it is not probable that most everyone is unwilling to spend their lives in an experience machine.
When we read a description of someone entering the experience machine, our experience as readers is viewing them from the outside. Nozick uses dystopian language to imply a disturbing image: Moreover, Nozick seems to me to rely on a naive understanding of what counts as virtual reality, which prevents him from noticing that most people already spend their entire lives plugged into a kind of virtual reality.
I mean, generally, that we live inside language and technology; and specifically, that we live with bank accounts and nations and ideology and international news and, nowadays, the Web and soon-to-be Google Glass.
I think Nozick rigs his thought experiment via narrative technique, and that Nozick ignores the fact that we already live inside lesser-versions of the experience-machine. Suppose you had the opportunity to have someone else make all of your decisions for you for the rest of your life.
Suppose further that this person knows you so incredibly well that her decisions are guaranteed to make you happier in the long term than you would be if you made your own decisions.
Would you accept such an arrangement? Why or why not? What does this case tell us about the plausibility of hedonism?
I would not accept this offer without certain added guarantees, e.
In other words, I have values which prevent me from accepting this offer of controlled-happiness i. The function of these values in my life is to be strategies for dealing with the fact that I am not controlled and my happiness is not maximized. I suggest that my actual values are a kind of emotional survival mechanism: Part of why these values are able to serve as strategies for happiness is that there appears to be in actual reality a reciprocal relationship between being a good person and being a happy person.
I need values so that I can be good, so that I can be happy. My thoughts are somewhat confused on this issue: So far from being distressed by the thought, he takes a great delight in these imagined sufferings.
Is this better or worse than a universe containing no sentient being at all? Make an argument in response to the above question. That is, argue either for the conclusion that the world with the deluded sadist is better, or for the conclusion that the world with no sentient being is better.
First, reconstruct your argument in premise-conclusion form.
Next, write a paragraph in defense of your argument. A happy person who is also unvirtuous is better than no happy person at all. The deluded-sadist universe has a happy person.
Therefore, the deluded-sadist universe is better than a universe with no happy person at all. There appears to be common consent between duty, consequentialist, and virtue ethicists that ethics is only meaningful with reference to sentient beings; despite their differences, none of these positions really makes any sense without persons who do, feel, and know.
And from a virtue-ethics view, it could be argued that the total virtue of the sadist is negative and so it would be better for no one to exist; however, it seems to me that a stronger virtuist position holds that the possibility of a virtuous person into whom the sadist might grow is better than no person at all.Thought Experiment and Article By Robert Nozick.
Published: Back to list. Robert Nozick Experience Machine. 3. Why, according to Nozick, wouldn't we plug into the experience machine If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the SpeedyPaper website then click on link.
Essay on Robert Nozick´s Happiness and the Experience Machine Words | 3 Pages Robert Nozick's Happiness Many theorist believe that happiness is the only important in people's life, and all that should matter to a person is being happy. Jul 14, · Nozick premises that everyone, or at least most people, are unwilling to spend their lives in an experience machine: “We learn that something matters to us in addition to experience by imagining an experience machine and then realizing we .
Nozick's Experience Machine and Hedonism Essay examples Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life.
Robert Nozick objects hedonism, and uses the example of an experience machine to support his thought. Briefly, the experience machine is a made up idea that a hedonist would abide by, but a regular person would see the downfalls of only having pleasure.
Nozick argues that the third limit of happiness is reality. He claims that you cannot be truly happy unless your happiness is connected to reality. He uses the example .