P1. If pleasure is what we value most and we will experience more pleasure by doing x rather than doing y, then we should do x over y
P2. We will experience more pleasure by plugging into the Experience Machine than not plugging into the Experience Machine
C1: If all that matters to us is maximising pleasure then we should want to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)
P3. We have reason to not want to plug into the Experience Machine
C2. Therefore, experiencing as much pleasure as possible is not the only thing we value
We can see that in premise three that Nozick is relying on an assumption that people would not want to plug into the experience machine. Nozick assumes that everyone, or at least most people, are unwilling to spend their …show more content…
And yet to this counter-argument, people may be further inclined to say: “What is the point if I get everything I want? Pleasure without knowing pain is nothing. It is neutral. What is happiness without sadness?” The Experience Machine, and additionally the reasons to not plug in, can suggest that we need more from life than pleasure in order to be satisfied. Pain and pleasure for many are two sides of the same coin and you cannot define much of one experience without the other. Some may say that the Experience Machine that has only the ‘inside’ or only the ‘outside’ view is not a human experience.
However, this judgement seems to come from another common assumption that something can only be appreciated through comparison. It is interesting to question: Is our intuition the same in the reverse scenario? For example, would we feel right in claiming that a person who has been abused since birth and has therefore only known negative experiences, is not worth rescuing from their situation because their lack of positive experiences means they have never experienced negative ones either? The gut reaction for most I assume is “of course not”. So with what reasoning can we assume that this alleged …show more content…
For example, you could go into the machine with the knowledge that your family and all the animals on earth will be taken care of and the environment will be maintained. However, one can also argue that once you begin to alter the parameters of the experience machine you are essentially affirming Nozick’s conclusion. Nozick might respond with: “Well of course you find the Experience Machine more appealing now because we addressed concerns other than your own individual pleasures, such as a responsibility owed to our family and the environment." As a result, we are just illustrating that we need something other than our own individual pleasures it order to be satisfied. Furthermore, it seems that we 've already started to transform the real world into some kind of experience machine and if so, why bother leaving it at that point? If this is the way that Nozick intends for participants to be able to choose their reality, then the thought experiment is basically immune to any kind of objections that one can think of, and, as a result, we cannot find a solution to it through empirical
P2. We will experience more pleasure by plugging into the Experience Machine than not plugging into the Experience Machine
C1: If all that matters to us is maximising pleasure then we should want to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)
P3. We have reason to not want to plug into the Experience Machine
C2. Therefore, experiencing as much pleasure as possible is not the only thing we value
We can see that in premise three that Nozick is relying on an assumption that people would not want to plug into the experience machine. Nozick assumes that everyone, or at least most people, are unwilling to spend their …show more content…
And yet to this counter-argument, people may be further inclined to say: “What is the point if I get everything I want? Pleasure without knowing pain is nothing. It is neutral. What is happiness without sadness?” The Experience Machine, and additionally the reasons to not plug in, can suggest that we need more from life than pleasure in order to be satisfied. Pain and pleasure for many are two sides of the same coin and you cannot define much of one experience without the other. Some may say that the Experience Machine that has only the ‘inside’ or only the ‘outside’ view is not a human experience.
However, this judgement seems to come from another common assumption that something can only be appreciated through comparison. It is interesting to question: Is our intuition the same in the reverse scenario? For example, would we feel right in claiming that a person who has been abused since birth and has therefore only known negative experiences, is not worth rescuing from their situation because their lack of positive experiences means they have never experienced negative ones either? The gut reaction for most I assume is “of course not”. So with what reasoning can we assume that this alleged …show more content…
For example, you could go into the machine with the knowledge that your family and all the animals on earth will be taken care of and the environment will be maintained. However, one can also argue that once you begin to alter the parameters of the experience machine you are essentially affirming Nozick’s conclusion. Nozick might respond with: “Well of course you find the Experience Machine more appealing now because we addressed concerns other than your own individual pleasures, such as a responsibility owed to our family and the environment." As a result, we are just illustrating that we need something other than our own individual pleasures it order to be satisfied. Furthermore, it seems that we 've already started to transform the real world into some kind of experience machine and if so, why bother leaving it at that point? If this is the way that Nozick intends for participants to be able to choose their reality, then the thought experiment is basically immune to any kind of objections that one can think of, and, as a result, we cannot find a solution to it through empirical