Nozick introduced an experience machine thought experiment to support the idea that happiness requires pleasurable experiences that are “in contact with reality.” In this thought experiment, people can choose to plug into a machine that induces exclusively pleasurable experiences.
The experience machine or pleasure machine is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It is an attempt to refute ethical hedonism by imagining a choice between everyday reality and an apparently preferable simulated reality.
According to a first interpretation of Nozick's argument, it proves (or attempts to prove) that we have strong reasons not to plug into the Machine. Such reasons could not be accepted by mental state Welfarism. The point is whether it would be rational (or right) for us to plug in or not.
To briefly recap, the Experience Machine argument is supposed to provide a case against hedonism. The argument is premised on the belief that (intuitively) plugging-in would not be the best thing for us and yet hedonism entails that plugging in would be the best thing for us.
The Experience Machine is a thought experiment which was put forward by Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy State and Utopia. It is one of the best known attempts to refute utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the doctrine which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility.
The experience machine'objection to hedonism has been a distraction, partly because it applies to non-hedonist theories, and partly because it is hard to see why being in the real world matters. What does matter is the question of what other than pleasure might increase well-being, whether in a real or virtual world.
Nozick, in general, contends that people are born with fundamental individual rights. These individual rights are paramount and that there is no need for a system to achieve moral equilibrium. He rejects all end-result theories, i.e. distributive theories such as Rawls theory of justice.
10:4214:12The Experience Machine and Utilitarianism - YouTubeYouTubeStart of suggested clipEnd of suggested clipMachine here's how it goes premise one if utilitarianism is true then the best possible life couldMoreMachine here's how it goes premise one if utilitarianism is true then the best possible life could be lived entirely in the experience.
Nozick's Experience Machine By plugging into this machine, you can experience everything you desire. Such machines could evidently generate immense pleasure for the person plugged in, creating a degree of happiness rarely, if ever, lived in the real world.
For Nozick, the Experience Machine thought experiment is meant to show there are things that matter to us beyond how our lives feel 'from the inside'. Pleasure is a feeling which exists only in our minds as an experience.
The experience machine or pleasure machine is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and The Examined Life (Chapter X). It is one of the best known attempts to refute ethical hedonism, and attempts to do so by imagining a choice between everyday reality ...
Psychologist and philosopher Joshua Greene says that our intuitions about the experience machine may be affected by status quo bias, and suggests reformulating the thought experiment in a form which counters this. According to his version:
The Experience Machine is hedonistic, and yet people still refuse to be plugged in for the reasons listed above. Therefore, a conclusion is made that being personally happy is not the greatest value everyone carries.
Nozick’s experience machine shows that our physical bodies and actions are essential to the lives we want to live. And we need them in order to understand and practice morality. Nozick conceives the experience machine in the early pages ...
If it were, we wouldn’t get upset at the premise of The Matrix because there would be nothing wrong with hooking somebody up to an experience machine and using his body’s heat and electrical activity for energy. Thus, physical bodies and physical actions matter to questions of morality.
A person who experiences the simulated version of a marathon cannot be said to be the kind of person who runs a marathon in terms of qualities like perseverance, physical endurance, introspection and mental toughness.
We don’t want to just experience things in our minds. We want to physically do them, make our bodies do the work, feel physical pain and pleasure and enjoy the sense of achievement that comes from actually performing physical actions. And it doesn’t matter whether the activity in question is mental or physical.
A machine that magically makes us brave or smart or strong is insufficient. Instead, we actually want to perform acts of courage, intelligence or strength. And a machine that magically makes us perform those acts is hardly better. Rather, we actually want to perform those actions ourselves, of our own volition.