Intro.
In this paper I will explain two powerful moral theories: Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, and consider “The Experience Machine” objection to Utilitarianism and a possible response as well as the “Problem of Right Action” objection and response to Virtue Ethics. In conclusion, I will argue that Virtue Ethics might be a better theory and will show that this claim can be defensible.
VE outline
Utilitarianism
In 19th century, an English philosopher Jeremy Bentham has founded a consequentialist moral theory called “Hedonic Act Utilitarianism”. He begins his book with the following statement: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." The theory is based on a concept of ancient hedonism the main goal of which is to make the world as happy as possible by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, so act will be considered moral if it results in the highest amount of happiness and the lowest amount of pain. The quantity of pleasure is measured in Hedons and the total hedonic value of an act is the difference of happiness over unhappiness for every person affected. .
The Experience Machine objection.
In 1974, Robert Nozick has created a thought experiment of the “Experience Machine” that is supposed to be a counter-example against Utilitarianism.
"Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper 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 experiences? [...]...
... middle of paper ...
...to experience happiness. We can say that life is a necessary condition for happiness and therefore is intrinsically valuable. Similarly, love has no value on it’s own sake. We desire love because it generally promotes happiness. This example show us that the reply to the “Experience Machine” objection is not strong enough in order to defend the theory and therefore we should reject it.
Works Cited
1. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed in the Year 1780, and Now First Published. By Jeremy Bentham, of Lincoln’s Inn, Esquire. (London: Printed for T. Payne, and Son, at the Mews Gate, 1789).
2. Week 3 lecture notes
3. E
4. http://www.danweijers.com/pdf/A%20Review%20and%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Experience%20Machine%20Objection%20to%20Hedonism%20-%20Dan%20Weijers.pdf
5. http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/againstutil.pdf
As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming humans need more than just pleasure in their lives. Nozick discovers that humans would not hook up to this machine because they would not fully develop as a person and consider it a form of suicide.
One definition of utilitarianism in general highlights the idea that an action is considered morally right or wrong depending on their results of the action (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The idea highlights that the end results are the only factor that truly matter in the decision of whether or not an action is morally right or wrong(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Utilitarianism can be split into two more detailed perspectives which are act and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism focus is on an individual case’s outcome (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Rule Utilitarianism looks at the action and its outcome in general (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Jeremy Bentham is associated with utilitarianism and his view of hedonism which is in response to the question of what is considered good in the world (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Hedonism focuses on pleasure or happiness as being the only good (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Pleasure and happiness are considered goods themselves since compared to friends or families that can produce such valuables as pleasure and happiness (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). This means that the gift of happiness one that cannot produce anything that would be of greater value. The views associated with hedonism have been rejected in cases since they only considered the
The Principle of Utility is Bentham’s description of what guides our moral behavior. According to Bentham, nature has put people “under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Pg. 33). It is in this natural world where pain and pleasure control the actions of people, “ pain and pleasure govern in all we do, in all we say, in all we think…” Pain and pleasure drive people’s decisions, and this is the basis for Bentham’s Principle of Utility.
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism is an ethnic theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to Jeremy Bentham, an act is considered as morally right if it provides the greatest amount of pleasure. Bentham’s view on utilitarianism is considered to be hedonistic because he does not take into account the consequences when considering that pleasure is the most important aspect. Bentham believes in maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. He also believed that pleasure is the only intrinsic good while pain and suffering is the only intrinsic bad. Bentham also believed that pleasure and pain are aspects that could be measured by something called the “hedonic calculus”. Bentham view on utility is considered as individualistic because it concerns more on oneself than on others. However, John Stuart Mill disagreed with Bentham ...
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the purposes of this paper, Utility will be considered to be the tendency to produce happiness. There are two types of Utilitarianism; these are “act” and “rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation. For example, an act utilitarian deciding from a list of possible day trips would sit down and calculate out the utility of each possible decision before coming to a conclusion as to which one was preferable. Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live. Rule utilitarians are not incapable of calculating a decision; they just do not see a need to do it all the time. For example, a rule utilitarian might have some rules like this: in general do not kill, in general do not steal, in general do not lie; but if they found a situation that might except the rule they would do the cal...
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Instead, it suggests that things such as living an autonomous life, engaging in the real world, and truth, are more valuable. Nozick claims that once we imagine an experience machine, we consider the idea of exiting within one – being submersed into a fluid filled tank with electrodes plugged into our nervous systems – repellent (NOZICK Singer& *259). The Matrix visually displays Nozick's position brilliantly. When the film brings us face to face with the machinery of the actual Matrix, we see hairless, pale, slimy humans, submerged in goo, with cables protruding from their bodies. This imagery evokes repugnance, and it is likely that viewers will feel disgust at the very thought of an experience machine existence. Furthermore, the likelihood of us dismissing the experience machine in favour of reality is increased through the character of the main protagonist, Neo, who we see as principled, genuine, and someone who values truth, even at the risk of loosing pleasure, which is shown in the 'red/blue pill' scene. In this scene it is made clear that if Neo opts out of the experience machine existence to confront reality, there is no promise for anything other than truth. In Neo choosing to unplug from the Matrix, we see someone virtuous and strong, traits which are generally viewed as positive. Thus, Neo serves as the embodiment of the assertion that pleasure is not what we hold to be of ultimate value, and we come to associate his positive character with the objection against
Thus, the simple calculation of the “greatest amount of happiness” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 55) to be experienced by the greatest number of people, proved difficult to accept by the opponents of utilitarianism. This writer, for one, would argue that although happiness was touted by the utilitarian as the intrinsic good to be desired, the mode and object of happiness varied and viewed differently by individuals. As Mill elucidated
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals. In the case that one does not produce happiness, one should also strive to reduce unhappiness. As Utilitarianism is wholly focused on the utility of a person’s actions, it is called a “consequentialist” theory. I argue that Utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy to follow due to its versatility, ethicality, and production of happiness for all.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
...nts he refers to. The first experiment is a mathematical scenario which offers oneself to choose whether they would take a life that offers an increasing slope of happiness or if they would take a decreasing slope of happiness. He states that people will choose life A because it is more promising and that people will have something to live for. His second experiment is the experience machine, which is a machine that is hooked up to oneself that relays good virtual experiences that causes one to be happy. The flaw to that is whether this machine is connected all the time because if not than the happiness will not be continuous. Either way both experiments had their highs and lows however I decided that it was better to choose neither experiment because both are depressing in some way which is why I choose to live an unexpected life with sporadic moments of happiness.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism sees the highest good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham believed that by adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do. Happiness equaled pleasure minus pain. Bentham provided a way of measuring pleasure and pain, he called it the hedonic calculus. There are seven criteria to this calculus. First being the intensity being measured – how strong is the pleasure. The second criteria, duration – how long will the pleasure last. The third, certainty – how likely or unlikely is the pleasure. Fourth, Propinquity - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain. The fifth, fecundity – what is the likely hood that a succession of pleasure will follow. The sixth criteria, purity – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pain. Lastly, is the extent – how many people will be affected. This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, having weighed up all the elements. These factors weigh up the potential amount of pleasure or pain which might arise from moral actions to decide which would be the best option to take. Ideally this formula should determine which act has the best tendency and is therefore
Though plugging into the Experience Machine may not bestow a good life for an individual, it does not decrease their welfare because the deception cannot be considered to have an intrinsic effect and that is the sole thing welfare must be altered by. Hence, genuine connections to reality that are lacking in the Experience Machine are not intrinsic desires affecting an individual’s welfare and objections to Experientialism have been effectively addressed and rebuked.