Experience Machine Thought Experiment and Philosophical Hedonism

Robert Nozick gained popularity for designing the “Experience Machine thought experiment,” which later raised controversies related to some theories. The experiment demonstrates how a certain machine stimulates various experiences after people plug themselves into it. In this regard, pleasurable experiences would dominate people who plug themselves into the Experience Machine, which Nozick argues would be unpleasant to humans. Initially, Nozick intended to demonstrate how people treat animals by providing pleasure. However, the Experience Machine gained significant attention from scholars who believed it related to hedonism. The central claim of philosophical hedonism is that humans strive to pursue pleasure as the most important aspect of survival (Bramble, 2018, p.1). It implies that people strive; people value pleasure as the primary good, whereas they perceive pain as evil; thus, humans aim to optimize pleasure while minimizing pain. However, Nozick’s premise behind the Experience Machine thought experiment contradicts the fundamental hedonism principles.

Nozick’s “experience machine thought experiments” refute hedonism since he posits that plugging into a specific machine would not be best for everyone. In this case, Nozick means that plugging life into the “Experience Machine” would not be desirable for everyone; thus, people would not choose it for themselves (Hindriks and Douven, 2017, p.279). Most philosophers disagree with hedonism since it does not assure pleasure to our dependents. Hence, people tend to disregard the experience machine since it satisfies individual pleasures alone, while others may experience pain if they do not plug it in. Despite the judgment that plugging into the experience machine would provide more pleasure than plain, it seems that most people reject plugging into the machine. Therefore, the subsequent reproductions of the experience machine would not convince anyone that the experience machine is desirable if it fails to cater to people’s pleasures alongside their dependents. It implies that hedonism is not ideal for a society that thrives on collectiveness since it promotes individuality in seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

Based on Nozick’s experiment, hedonism is false since not only pain and pleasure provide intrinsic value or disvalue to humans. Philosophical hedonism assumes that human psychology is constructed to seek pleasure in life alone. This premise is false because people acquire satisfaction through achieving their goals and objectives. The process is not streamlined, which one enjoys throughout the journey since they encounter obstacles. In this case, people do not give up because it would be detrimental if they retreat to their comfort zone, dominated by pleasure at the expense of their future. As a result, ambitious people may not plug their lives into the “experience machine,” believing they will derive pleasurable experiences. Similarly, Rutherford (2021) argues that pursuing individual happiness is flawed since it causes disappointments (par.1). In this case, the author argues that even though happiness is an emotion that boosts our well-being and health, its obsession frustrates us (Rutherford, 2021, par.1). It implies people’s pursuit for an individual life is beyond pleasure and pain, as demonstrated by hedonism. According to Nozick, pleasurable moments should relate to reality, opposing hedonism that creates fantasy (Hindriks and Douven, 2017, p. 278). Remarkably, philosophical hedonism fails to connect with reality; thus, it is unjustifiable.

Even though most people agree that it is wrong to plug into the experience machine, they are not certain whether their current lives would remain better than if plugged into the machine. Notably, most philosophers and other scholars argue against plugging our lives into the experience, contradicting philosophical hedonism. In this case, they are based on Nozick’s rationale that plugging into the machine would deprive people of an opportunity to be and do some particular things (Hindriks and Douven, 2017, p.279). Consequently, some believe that the general fear of change triggers the suspicion that preoccupies people when they think of plugging into the “experience machine.” Therefore, before people are convinced regarding the unpleasant feeling associated with plugging into the “experience machine,” it is unfair to rule out that the “Experience Machine” is unappealing to people.

In summary, the experience machine successfully discredits philosophical hedonism since it is founded on a contradictory premise. Philosophical hedonism’s central claim is that human psychology is designed to prioritize pleasure and the only good while avoiding pain. Nozick’s “Experience Machine thought experiment successfully opposes hedonism’s central claim. Even though the experience machine is presumed to provide pleasure, many people do not exhibit the willingness to plug their lives into this machine. On the contrary, some philosophers argue that despite the universal judgment that rejects hedonism, people are uncertain whether their lives will remain better than when plugged into a specific machine. It implies that people should try to plug into this machine to overcome the general fear of change. However, philosophical hedonism is impractical in a collective society since it propagates individuality while seeking pleasures and avoiding pain. Besides, pleasure and pain are not the only values and disvalues of human existence. Thus, philosophical hedonism is unjustifiable in the view of Nozick’s “Experience Machine thought experiment.”

Reference List

Bramble, B. (2018). A New Defense of Hedonism about Well-Being. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 3(20191108).

Hindriks, F. and Douven, I. (2017). Nozick’s experience machine: An empirical study. Philosophical Psychology, 31(2), pp.278–298.

Rutherford, N. (2021). Why is our pursuit of happiness flawed? [online] www.bbc.com. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210105-why-our-pursuit-of-happiness-may-be-flawed.