In his 1975 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick introduced a now famous thought experiment he entitled "The Experience Machine." Nozick believes that this intuition pump successfully demonstrates that hedonism is false and that human beings do value things other than happiness and pleasure as goods in themselves, namely "authenticity" and the like. In this paper, I will offer a thorough exegesis of the Experience Machine thought experiment and attempt to show that it fails to establish that something like authenticity could serve as a potential normative foundation.
II. Nozick’s Experience Machine
Nozick presents us with the following scenario: "Suppose there were an experience machine," he says, "that would give you any experience you desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life’s experiences?"
Nozick’s machine would provide a "large library or smorgasbord" of experiences to choose from, and while in it, we would not be aware in the least that what we were experiencing was not reality. Nozick has built his machine in such a way that all would be perfect bliss for us while inside, and he takes pains to assure us of the machine’s adequacy. For people concerned about tiring of the experiences provided by it, for instance, Nozick suggests that they be given "ten minutes or ten hours" outside of the tank every two years to select their experiences for the next two years. In addition, we could ignore problems such as experien...
... middle of paper ...
...perceive the world around them authentically. The way things stand now it does not appear that such a thing as an experience machine will ever be possible, at least not in the sort of scenario envisioned here, where all of society could potentially plug-in. Given this fact about our scientific limitations, Nozick has succeeded in demonstrating for us the overwhelming importance of living a life that we believe to be in contact with reality and truth in some sense. It is clear that this belief occupies a position of central importance in how we evaluate our own lives, at least in many cases, and for this reason it should be taken very seriously. This fact about our human psychology allows us to appreciate the difference, once and for all, between the experience machine in all its uniqueness, on the one hand, and ordinary methods of escape from reality, on the other.
Robert Nozick was a political philosopher who best reflects the political thinking of the United States, to the extent that his work is unthinkable without considering the history and the constitution of the nation. From this starting point Nozick show us that in the state of nature men are entitled on one hand to their lives and safety, and also to self-possession. Inspired by empiricist philosopher John Locke who proclaimed that natural rights exist and are claimable, Nozick claims that his concept of a minimal state is morally justifiable. “Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against any force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates person’s rights not to be force to do certain
Life is a very valuable asset, but when lived on someone else’s terms its nothing but a compromise. The seemingly perfect image of Utopia which combines happiness and honesty with purity, very often leads in forming a dystopian environment. The shrewd discrepancy of Utopia is presented in both the novel ‘The Giver’ by Lois Lowry and the film ‘The Truman Show’ directed by Peter Weir. Both stories depict a perfect community, perfect people, perfect life, perfect world, and a perfect lie. These perfect worlds may appear to shield its inhabitants from evil and on the other hand appear to give individuals no rights of their own. By comparing and contrasting the novel ‘The Giver’ and the film ‘The Truman Show’, it can be derived that both the main characters become anti-utopian to expose the seedy underbelly of their Utopian environment which constructs a delusional image of reality, seizes the pleasures in their lives and portrays a loss of freedom.
Nozick introduces his theory by calling a “minimal state” (Nozick 149) the only justifiable state that does not infringe on the rights of the people living in this state. Nozick as a libertarian, believes in the freedom of the individual over all else., Nozick says, “There is no one natural dimension or weighted sum or combination of a small number of natural dimensions that yields the distributions generated in accordance with the principle of entitlement”(Nozick 157). The patterns, upon which certain sections argue for the distribution of wealth, such as poverty etc., do not impress Nozick at all. Continuing the belief of individual freedom over all else, Nozick then presents his entitlement theory, which advocates that all of one’s possessions sho...
Many people value the tangible over the complex. However, viewing the world solely through this definite lens is an oversimplification. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We explores this flaw in a society founded solely upon its government’s definition of the “ultimate happiness.” To reach utopia, it eliminates inefficiency, crime, and despondency, by promoting state-led happiness. Despite these admirable goals, the One State’s methods sacrifice freedom, individualism, and, ironically, happiness itself, ultimately failing its mission. Zamyatin explores the emotionless routine within the One State to assert that happiness cannot exist when controlled and rationalized.
The book of 1 Samuel, a part of the Old Testament, sparks the dawn of the United Kingdom of Israel by telling of its first king, Saul. Samuel is one of the first talked about pre-literary prophets in the bible perhaps because he anointed the first king of the United Kingdom. He is a prophet by definition because he possessed the ability to converse with the almighty Yahweh. Samuel and Saul are key players to the rise of the kingdom but Saul runs into trouble and disobeys God, which leads him to his own inevitable demise.
In order to reach a better theory to address what makes a life go best we must admit that there are things which are worthy of being desired due to some intrinsic properties they have, as opposed to assuming all things which are good for an agent are good only because they are desired by the agent; this notion however, is too far a departure from the idea of Desire Satisfaction Theory, and requires an alternative ethical theory to account for it.
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
... Irving "Constitution" The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics. Ed Brian Galligan and Winsome Roberts. Oxford University Press 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Hillsborough CommunityCollege. 23
In conclusion, much intrigue and amazement has been placed on this study. Psychologically speaking this study is a testament on the ability of humans to lose their humanity. Limited rules were placed on both parties; however, due to the apparent mental branding by society there were an effortless transition to the traditional characteristics of each role. The mock prisoners lost the ability to understand that they were not convicted criminals. The subject prison guards mentally transitioned to actual correctional officers. Whereas the subject prisoners wanted to leave at any time and forgot that they could; many of the mock prison guards did not want to leave and thought of devious ways to antagonize. Although there was a lack of actual planning by the experimenters, the study still was ground breaking due to the empirical evidence retrieved
Psychologists who adopt nomothetic approach are mainly concerned with what we share with others, but differ in degree. Establishing universal laws where all populations are describe and measure on the same set of dimensions and scale, i.e., trait theory. Psychologists, who adopt idiographic approach interested in the aspect of experience over time, discover what makes each of us unique. Theoretically, they can be coherent, because the nomothetic approach also agrees with this 'uniqueness,' as it measures differences in degree.
In this paper, I will examine Nozick’s ‘whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just’ formula. By this formula, Nozick protects individuals’ absolute property rights. To examine its validity, first, I will show that Nozick’s entitlement theory relies on Kantian principle, which demands treating everyone as persons having individual rights with dignity. However, it will be clear that Kantian theory does not necessarily yield the concept of absolute property rights. Second, I will explain the principle of self-ownership, which will clarify that persons have rights over their bodies and powers. I will find the principle of self-ownership is compatible with Kantian principle. Third, I will examine Nozick’s proviso, which guides legitimate initial acquisition. However, finally, I will show that the appropriation that passes Nozick’s proviso violates the idea of respecting people as persons with dignity. In other words, Nozick’s proviso is inconsistent with Kantian principle. Therefore, Nozick’s formula fails.
...uld be in Nozick’s framework (Rawls, 76). For Rawls, the purpose of society is to minimize disagreement and generate a cooperative social order that benefits the least well off. He continues on to argue that under Nozick’s framework it would compel individuals to join societies, making it unfair to individuals. For Rawl’s the Nozickian framework is naïve, blissfully assuming that individuals will be inclined to peacefully coexist if they are given opportunity to pursue their own life projects.
Nozick‘s experience machine creates experiences based on selections made by human beings themselves for their own individual. Every two years they are required to make this selection whilst feeling some distress (in reality they exist in a floating tank). Then they submerge into a fake world for another two years and so on (Timmons, 122-123). He believes that rational humans would choose not to plug into the experience machine because they would want the actual experience of life instead of a virtual existence. It is a shallow reality that they are provided which will not satisfy them for long. Especially because it does not allow them to develop their own person, or personality, it strips away their human qualities and turns each of them into an “indeterminate blob” (Timmons, 123). In fact, this is a man-made world that provides nothing but a selection of experiences to choose from, it is not an actual experience an individual can have. It is ...
The book is a collection of stories, references to the bible, references to ancient times, and examples all to help the reader understand what optimal experience is, and how to achieve this state of consciousness.
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.