4.1: Is Pleasure all that Matters? Thoughts on the “Experience Machine” (Prabhpal Singh)

19 Is Pleasure all that Matters? Thoughts on the “Experience Machine”
Prabhpal Singh⁷³

The notion of Hedonism is one of serious philosophical significance, especially in accounts of human action and motivations, and in ethical accounts of good and happy human lives. The term ‘Hedonism’ is derived from the Greek word ‘hēdone’, meaning ‘pleasure’. There are two doctrines of Hedonism, one being the descriptive thesis of Psychological Hedonism, which states that only pleasure motivates us, and the other being the normative thesis of Ethical Hedonism, which states that pleasure is the only good and promoting pleasure is what makes one’s life a valuable and happy one.

My aim is to argue against both doctrines of Hedonism. I will consider some philosophical criticisms and counter examples against both views, including discussion of Robert Nozick’s famous ‘Experience Machine’⁷⁴ thought experiment, in an attempt to show neither only pleasure motivates us, nor pleasure is the only good.

Deliberate human action involves motivation. Motives can be understood in two ways. Motives can be those things that move a person to action, or motives can be the ultimate ends of an action. The hedonistic picture of human motivation holds that only pleasure is a motive for human action. Consider the following claim:

Psychological Hedonism: Only pleasure motivates us.

According to this claim, it is only pleasure that moves people to action, and only pleasure is the ultimate end of human action. On this view, the underlying reason I eat chocolate cake, or go for a walk, or chat with friends is because I find doing these things pleasurable. I pursue my goals with the ultimate aim of enjoying the pleasure I would gain from achieving them. This goes for all human actions. We act in ways we take to promote our pleasure, and avoid acting in ways which promote our displeasure.

But is this really all there is to human motivation? Is it really true that only pleasure moves us to action? Consider the following examples: A single mother who works multiple jobs in order to save money to secure her children’s future, or a spy who endures painful torture in order to protect their nation’s secrets, or a boy strolling down the street who kicks a rock as he walks by it ‘just because he felt like it’. It is not clear in these examples that the person acting is doing so only for the sake of pleasure. What pleasure does the single mother gain from laboring away while trying to support her children? Is that she loves and cares about her children and their future not a more plausible motive for her actions rather than that she finds laboring her life away pleasurable? Does the spy not endure pain for the reason that they deeply value loyalty to their nation rather than for the sake of some masochistic pleasure? Do people not sometimes just do things ‘for the hell of it’?

If it is the case that people do sometimes act on and for motives other than pleasure, then the thesis of Psychological hedonism is false. The examples mentioned above are meant to illustrate instances in which this is precisely the case. It is highly intuitive that the people in those examples are not solely motivated by the promotion of their own pleasure. This is reason to doubt the thesis of Psychological Hedonism.

The Psychological Hedonist may insist that the people in these cases do have motives besides pleasure, but that these motives are ultimately reducible to pleasure. The single mother struggles to support her children because she wants to see them grow, but having them grow safe and healthy is something that brings her pleasure. The spy takes pleasure in the knowledge that they have remained loyal to their country. And the boy finds some pleasure in doing some things ‘just for the hell of it’. If this is the case, then pleasure is still their fundamental motivation, just in an underlying manner.

It may very well be the case the single mother, the spy, and the boy on the street really are acting for nothing more than pleasure, but someone who accepts the thesis of Psychological Hedonism must explain why the possible alternative motives are not the correct ones, and only pleasure is in fact what moves them to action. In other words, sure, our motivations could be reducible to the promotion of pleasure, but how can we distinguish pleasure as the fundamental motive in the above mentioned cases? The Psychological Hedonist could provide hedonic accounts for each of the mentioned examples, but their explanations lack determinacy. There is not a way for the Psychological Hedonist to demonstrate that pleasure in fact is the fundamental motive for those actors. There is a burden of proof for the Psychological Hedonist to explain why our intuitions in certain cases are the incorrect ones and the hedonic picture of human motivation is the correct one. The challenge for the Psychological Hedonist in defending their thesis is to explain why it often appears people act for lots of reasons and motives beyond pleasure, something they cannot determine. Given that many human actions are intuitively motivated by a variety of things besides pleasure, pleasure is not the only thing that motivates us. Therefore the thesis of Psychological Hedonism is false.

As mentioned, Psychological Hedonism is only a descriptive thesis, meaning it is only a claim about how we in fact behave and are. It does not tell us how we should be. In other words, it is not a normative thesis. The normative thesis, called Ethical Hedonism, is as follows:

Ethical Hedonism: Only pleasure has value or worth, and only displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.

On this view, what makes something (like a course of action, or state of affairs) good, valuable, or worthwhile is the pleasure that thing produces. For the Ethical Hedonist, pleasure is the only thing to consider when it comes to evaluating things as good or valuable. This means that what makes giving to charity, or helping a friend, or volunteering at a soup kitchen good is that these things produce pleasure. The same goes for all other goods as well, for what it means for something to be good is for it to produce pleasure.

But, why think the thesis of Ethical Hedonism is true? Is it really the case that pleasure is all there is to what is good, valuable, or worthwhile? While Ethical Hedonism may seem simple and attractive, perhaps even intuitive to some, it faces serious problems. One potential problem for this view is that it does not account for values besides pleasure. By claiming only pleasure is good, it leaves out other things that seem to be, at least intuitively, good and valuable.

In chapter 3 of his book, Nozick invites us to imagine what he calls the ‘Experience Machine’⁷⁵. Nozick writes:

“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's experiences?”⁷⁶

Anyone who plugs into the machine will be able to experience anything they desire. If you wanted to experience climbing a mountain, or winning Olympic gold, you could. What experience(s) you choose to have while plugged into the machine will be indiscernible from those same experience(s) you would have if you had them outside of the machine. You could stay plugged in as long or as little as you like. If you wanted, you could plug into an endless stream of pleasurable experiences. The question Nozick asks is should you enter the machine? It sure is tempting. After all, who wouldn’t want to experience endless pleasure? However, Nozick argues we should not enter the machine. This is because there seems to be more that matters besides how our lives feel like ‘from the inside’.

Nozick draws a distinction between actually doing something and merely having an experience of doing something. One reason to not enter the machine is because whatever experiences you have in the machine will not be reflective of a reality beyond your first-person experience. If I climb a mountain in the machine, I will not have truly climbed a mountain. If I play the experience of winning Olympic gold, I have only done so in my own mind, not in reality. This also applies to being a certain way. We also want to be certain sorts of people. Nozick argues that while plugged into the machine, we cannot know what sort of people we are, if we are courageous, kind, intelligent, or loving because we have only the experiences produced by the machine. It is important to us what we actually do and who we actually are beyond simulated experience. According to Nozick, plugging into the machine is a kind of ‘suicide’⁷⁷, one in which we lose all connection to reality, despite being able to simulate it. For Nozick, the Experience Machine thought experiment is meant to show there are things that matter to us beyond how our lives feel ‘from the inside’.

Pleasure is a feeling which exists only in our minds as an experience. Nozick’s thought experiment invites us to not only think about the distinction between mere experience and external reality, but also the value of mere experiences as opposed to real experiences. If Nozick is right that we should not enter the machine for the reason that really doing something and really being some way matter beyond merely having the experience of doing or being, then it looks like there is value and worth in things being real and true. If it is the case that realness and truth are valuable, then it follows that not only pleasure is valuable. So, if pleasure is not the only thing which is valuable or worthwhile, then the thesis of Ethical Hedonism is false.

But one could object to Nozick, and argue it would be good to enter the machine. Why should we think that ‘real’ experiences are any better than non-real ones? After all, one of the stipulations of entering the machine is that the experiences in it would be indiscernible from ‘real’ ones, so what does it matter if they are not the real deal? If I can have the experience of climbing a mountain, or winning Olympic gold, who cares if I did not actually do it? To answer this, consider a further example:

In universe A, Avery loves Blair, and Blair loves Avery back. Avery has many experiences with Blair, all of which Avery always finds very pleasing.

In universe B, Avery loves Blair, but Blair only pretends to love Avery back. Blair is just using Avery and actually does not love Avery at all. Avery never catches on to Blair’s act.

While Avery from universe A and Avery from universe B have identical experiences and therefore feel identical pleasure in their respective situations, would we want to say that their lives are equally good?

If we accept the thesis of Ethical Hedonism, then we must accept that there is no difference in the quality of Avery’s life in the different universes. But does there not seem to be something wrong with Avery’s life in universe B independently of their experiences? It seems to me that Avery in universe B is essentially living a lie, one in which they falsely believe they are loved when in fact they are not. Their relationship with Blair is a substance-less illusion. This example and Nozick’s experience machine demonstrate that being in touch with reality and not being deceived, and not having false beliefs of one’s situation, have value and are important for a good life. The core distinction at work here is between our first-person experience of the world, and the world itself. Because there is a difference in how our lives feel like to us, and how they actually are, it is the question of what makes a happy life is not only about what a happy life might feel like. A pleasurable life feels good, but it does not follow from this that it is good. The distinction between feeling and being, much like the distinction between experiencing and being suggest there is more to a good and happy life than merely experiencing pleasure. If there is more to a happy life than how it feels to us, then pleasure cannot be the only thing of value or worth. Therefore, the thesis of Ethical Hedonism is false.

If Nozick’s thought experiment successfully demonstrates that pleasure is not the only thing of value, and in so far as there are any values, then there is a plurality of values. On this Value Pluralist view, there is a variety of distinct values that each contribute to a happy life. A happy life will then depend upon realizing not just pleasure, but other values as well. Some candidates for these other values may include truth, knowledge, love, courage, respect, faith, peace, honesty, and virtue (of course, this is not an exhaustive list).

In conclusion, both the Psychological and Ethical theses of Hedonism are false. People often act on variety of motives beyond the promotion of pleasure. Furthermore, the ethical considerations brought to light by Nozick’s Experience Machine thought experiment indicate there is more to a good life than how things are like from our first-person experience. Because pleasure is mere experience, and there are things which matter beyond mere experience, pleasure is not the only thing good, valuable, or worthwhile.

For Review and Discussion

1. Is pleasure the most important “good” in our lives? If so, why? If not, what else matters?

2. Would you plug into the experience machine? Why or why not?

3. Can you come up with your own version of the experience machine that would be more appealing to more people?