philosophy sample on Hedonism
Hedonism: Critiques and Counter Arguments
Hedonism is a term derived from a Greek term hedone that signifies pleasure. This term also refers to other related theories that describe what is good for people, how they should behave and most importantly the factors motivating them to behave in the ways they do (Lampe, 2015 p1). In every hedonistic theory, pleasure and pain are identified as the most essential aspects of whichever phenomena they are intended to illustrate. Notably, hedonistic theories are popular in the manner they are for the mere fact that they recognize pain and pleasure as the only essential elements of whatever they are describing gas opposed to just two important elements. Undoubtedly, the assertions that pleasure and pain are the only two elements of ultimate significance is perhaps why hedonism is idiosyncratic and philosophically interesting. Most philosophical hedonists have an affliction of focusing on theories of well-being as well as value in the aspects of the good life for the individual living it. This essay seeks to evaluate Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s defense of hedonism and outline the basic features of hedonism. It also seeks to accentuate on Nozick’s experience machine objection to hedonism, and highlight Hewitt’s reply to the experience machine objection as well as give any objection to the reply.
In terms of theory of value, hedonism asserts that pleasure is fundamentally valuable while pain is fundamentally not valuable. Most hedonists often describe pleasure and pain in broad terms factoring in both physical aspects as well as mental phenomena (Lampe, 2015 p2). Consequently, this means that a fond memory in an individual’s mind causes pleasure while hearing death of a loved one brings forth pain. When pain and pleasure are defined as such, hedonism as a theory dissecting what is valuable to individuals becomes naturally appealing. Largely regarded as philosophical radicals, Bentham and Mill recognize happiness hedonistically in the sense that it consists in pleasure and that the ultimate objective of every individual is predominantly the promotion of the person’s own pleasure or happiness (Lampe, 2015 p16). He asserts that humans are moved by pains and pleasures of other individuals. However, he seems to assume that other regarding pleasures have the ability to move humans seeing that individuals take pleasure in the pleasure of other individuals. This premise lays a claim that Bentham supports psychological egoism which states that an individual’s own pleasure of happiness is and can only be the final object of their desires. In his hedonistic assertions about utility or happiness deeming happiness to consist in pleasure, Bentham is thus concerned with psychological hedonism.
On the other hand, James Mill perceives psychological hedonism as self-evident. This is highlighted when he states that “The desire, therefore, of that power which is necessary to render the persons and properties of human beings subservient to our pleasures, is the grand governing law of human nature” (Mill, 1824, IV & V). In some instances, Bentham bridges to a rather diverse set of interests which basically dispensations to psychological pluralism. He accentuates that utility not only elucidates on human motivation but also sets the standard of what is perceived to be right or wrong (Bentham, 1789 I p 1). In a political setting, Bentham claims that our biggest challenge is getting leaders who are self-interested and can lead in the interest of those who are governed as per the dictates of utilitarianism. By making rulers democratically accountable, Bentham and Mill believe that it’s possible to resolve self-interested motivation as well as endorsement of the common good.
Inevitably, there are those who follow the concept of hedonism and those who vehemently object it. Among those who object it is Robert Nozick whose contribution is though the machine thought experiment. This experience machine gives a person any experience they desire as they are connected to a machine from their brain in order for them to think of their most desired thoughts like being on a dream cruise; having an endless amount on money etc. this experiment gives an individual a chance to experience their desires “from the inside” (Nozick, 1974 P43). Even though the machine was initially created to prove a point on how animals are treated, it became a favorite for many especially those who saw hedonism as falsity. This experiment was highly successful in that anyone who wrote against hedonism from the mid 70s cites the experiment as a decisive objection against hedonism.
The main reason why this experiment worked and is still considered to be decisive is due to the prevalent opinion that a life that a life plugged into an Experience Machine is not alluring is perceived to bring forth an overwhelming basis to rebuff this central claim. The general objection claims that plugging into this machine can dramatically make someone’s life more pleasurable and less painful (Weijers, 2013 P16). Secondly, most people would decline the chance to lug into the machine and ignore their responsibilities forever. Third, if one declines the aforementioned chance, then pleasure and pain fail to become the only aspects that embrace an intrinsic value (Weijers, 2013 P16). Key to note is that the judgment that a life plugged into this a machine is something we wouldn’t choose comes up despite Nozick’s aim to discount some possible reasons as to why we might reject the chance to plug in like allowing those who rely on us to plug in as well.
Nozick’s work is also met by various critiques and among these is Sharon Hewitt who argues that conclusions drawn from the thought experiment ought to factor in considerations regarding the operations of an individual’s intuitions about value. She asserts that to conclude that practical hedonistic reasons do not cause our pessimistic reaction to the experiment we must not only specify their irrelevance but also give factual details that make them irrelevant (Hewitt, 2009 p14). Doing this guarantees us seeing our feelings towards the experience machine become less negative. Hewitt also argues that in any case our feelings concerning the experience machine fail to track hedonistic reasons, there exist other lies other reasons as to why we would distrust the dependability of anti-hedonistic intuitions. Lastly, she argues that for the mere fact that perceiving some things besides pleasure as ultimate ends in themselves can act as hedonistic ends, hedonism creates room for us to take other things as intrinsically valuable which makes the existence of our ostensibly anti-hedonistic intuitions far from clear-cut proof of hedonism being false (Hewitt, 2009 p17).
In conclusion, and in response to Hewitt’s contribution, in spite of the almost undisputed judgment terming plugging into this machine as a mistake, there is still some incongruity on why we perceive that our life would be better than a life in an experience machine. Hewwit states that to conclude that practical hedonistic reasons do not cause our pessimistic reaction to the experiment we must not only specify their irrelevance but also give factual details that make them irrelevant. As such, it’s imperative to note that Nozick’s underlying principle is that plugging into an experience machine would deny individuals the chance be certain things and do certain things (instead of just having internal experiences of doing certain things and being them. Perhaps this is why some philosophers suggest that an individual’s intuitions towards experience machine are founded on a subconscious fear of change.
Works Cited
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. pp. 42-45.
Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation [Principles] Works vol. I.
Mill, J. (1824). Essay on Government.
Hewitt, S. (2009). What do our intuitions about the experience machine really tell us about hedonism? Springer Science.
Lampe, K. (2015). The birth of Hedonism: the Cyrenaic philosophers and pleasure as a way of life. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Weijers, D. (2013). A Review and Assessment of the Experience Machine Objection to Hedonism.
