The word hedonism originates from the Greek name for pleasure. In chapter 1 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau defines hedonism as the view that "there is only one thing that is intrinsically good for us: happiness. Everything else improves our lives only to the extent that it makes us happy" (25). Enjoyment is said to be the key to a good life. Throughout the chapter, he goes on to list the most important reasons for hedonism's popularity. In chapter 2, Shafer-Landau proceeds to list the theories that attempt to disprove hedonism by highlight the shortcomings in its logic and hedonism's replies to these objections. The Argument from Autonomy, is one of strongest objections to hedonism listed. Shafer-Landau states that for a theory to pose a serious threat to hedonism, it needs to challenge the idea that happiness is the only thing of intrinsic value (34). Chapter 2 discuses four strong objections that have the potential and support to disprove hedonism. The Argument from Autonomy provides an abundance of strong information to support its claims.
The Argument from Autonomy has three premises:
1. If hedonism is true, then autonomy contributes to a good life only insofar as it makes us happy.
2. Autonomy sometimes directly contributes to a good life, even if it fails to make us happy.
3. Therefore, hedonism is false.
…show more content…
Autonomy is the basis of authenticity allowing individuals the ability to make choices that directly reflect their own values. The application of these values to one's decisions can result in both positive and negative outcomes. Hedonism claims that happiness is the only thing that carries value to life. All other things (e.g. autonomy) work in accordance to improve our lives only to the extent that they make one happier (Shafer-Landau 39). Thus, proving the first premise to be
Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”
In this essay I am going to argue that Robert Nozick’s experience machine does show that hedonism is false. Firstly I am going to define what the experience machine thought experiment is, then I am going to define hedonism. Then I am going to show how Nozick’s argument does in fact show that hedonism is false, and that we consider things other than pleasure and pain when considering value. After that I am going to respond to some objections. Firstly the objection raised by Felipe de Brigard, who says that our initial reaction to the experience machine might just be cognitive bias. I will say that De Brigard actually adds weight to Nozick’s argument. Secondly I will respond to the objection that the reason people dislike the experience machine
The philosophical text “The Best Things in Life: A Guide to What Really Matters”, by Thomas Hurka illustrates the three key aspects of a good life and well-being; ethical hedonism, desire satisfaction, and objectivism. Ethical hedonism describes how something is intrinsically good for you if it’s a state of pleasure, your well-being improves when you experience pleasure. Desire satisfaction defines how something is intrinsically good for you if you intrinsically desire it, your well-being improves when you satisfy an intrinsic desire. Objectivism is about how some things are intrinsically good for you independently of any desire you may have or any pleasure you may get, your well-being improves when you acquire those things. Hurka believes that the best things in life are knowledge, achievement, pleasure,
Many centuries ago, people started thinking about the question “Who we are, where did we come from, and where are we going?” While seeking for the answers, many standpoints developed. Everyone has an opinion; when confronted with life’s decisions, even on what not to do and how to best stay away from regret. Then, another question was raised: can the individual ever be higher than the universal? Lead by the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, many people believe that all are born selfish hedonists and get shaped by the culture and environment and eventually live for the society.
Autonomy does have its advantages and disadvantages. One perk to autonomy is that it allows us to make decisions that we feel are in our best interests, as long as they either, do not affect those around us or are beneficial for them as well. As long as choices made based on autonomy are a result of the person acting on relevant, settled, preferred, and their own preferences; paternalistic intervention is not justified. However, autonomy is one of the easily lost characteristics. As I mentioned above, once an addictive substance has entered your life due to an autonomistic decision, your autonomy is lost. The addiction takes over and you can neith...
What autonomy does is it helps stimulates an atmosphere of self-improvement in a community rather than people being dependent on others. Besides not using people as mere means O’Neill believes in helping develop others’ ends so that they can be independent.
Using autonomy as effective deliberation which relates autonomy as having “to do with the rationality of a person’s thought process” (Yeo & Moorhouse, 1996, p. 94), it could be confirmed using the results of the capacity assessments as evidence, that Ms. R is rational and making this decision with competent deliberation. Mr R’s decision can additionally be justified using autonomy as authenticity, which assesses the consistency of a person 's choice with their “settled dispositions, values and characters” (Yeo & Moorhouse, 1996, p. 94). Since Ms. R is a 59 year old woman who has been living alone, her choice to remain home is authentic and no different than what she has been doing
Autonomy is the idea of having control over one’s actions and being able to think freely and act independently (Kazez 52). The people of The Brave New World did not have a choice in their role in society. They were all manufactured in a laboratory to fulfill a certain societal role and conditioned to enjoy that role. The citizens of The Brave New World were basically slaves to their conditioning and were trained to believe that their lives were important and enjoyable. Soma was also a factor in removing autonomy from the masses. It caused people to ignore the problems in their society and be complacent with the life they were assigned during their creation. Once again, the liftman is an ideal example of a citizen in The Brave New World that lacked autonomy. He lacked the ability to think for himself and realize that his job was not actually important nor was it enjoyable. The only reason he believed his job was important and enjoyable was because he was brainwashed to think it was. The epsilon-liftman, along with all the other citizens, were given soma to maintain a feeling of false happiness, never question the status quo, and to never think
Consequently, the Respect for Autonomy is in which it means the patient has the right to choose treatment. In Frankenstein the creature has no choice if he wants to be created. He is created by Victor as a science experiment to see if Victor can cheat death, and find any cures to illnesses. The creature has no say to be created,
Nozick’s thought experiment of the Experience Machine challenges hedonism and utilitarianism by suggesting pleasure is not our only priority. He argues this on the premises that if pleasure, or more specifically the experience of pleasure, is the only thing of importance then we will always choose the more pleasure inducing option. Thus he presents the experience machine, which would grant more pleasure than the outside world, and notes that the initial reaction of many to not want to plug in suggests the conclusion as outlined above. It will be shown that the limited ability Nozick has to counter the objection that doing and being are forms of experiencing, in contrast to his claim that we would rather act than experience, as well as the assumptions he makes in his arguments lead to his conclusion not necessarily being supported by his arguments.
Bentham realised that because this theory is based on the outcome of our actions it may be difficult to assess fairly which action will produce the most happiness. He therefore developed the ‘hedonistic calculus’, a form of calculating the happiness resulting from an act by assessing 7 different factors of the pleasure produced such as intensity and duration. In doing this Bentham was attempting to create some sort of ...
We run into a philosophical problem when we ask the following question: Is the attitude of individuals morally significant when dealing with autonomy and self-respect? The same philosophical problem likewise applies to the question of whether or not Autonomy and
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. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.
Most people think that the highest end is a life of pleasure. Hedonists have defined happiness as " an equivalent to the totality of pleasurable or agreeable feeling.';(Fox, 3) Some pleasures are good and contribute to happiness. Not all ends are ultimate ends but the highest end would have to be something ultimate; the only conceivable ultimate end is happiness.
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.