Ethics Essay: Experientialism and Hedonism
The essay that lost me a lot of sleep:
Prompt:
Should we believe hedonism? Should we believe experientialism? Explain how these views differ and what each implies. Which is the more plausible view? Is either view plausible? Consider objections to each view from Socrates, Callicles, and/or Nozick. Answer or defend the objections in your own terms, in either case suggesting what we learn about the nature of quality of life.
Several methods of measurement have been proposed by philosophers in an attempt to define what it is that objectively makes a person’s life go well. This essay will discuss two types - or more specifically, one general type along with a more specific subset of it. The more general of these two types is experientialism, which is the belief that the quality of one’s life is rooted in the quality of their experiences. Hedonism, a more specific variation of experientialism, measures the quality of experiences exclusively on the pleasure they give a person; otherwise, it follows the same formula. The implausibility of both theories, however, lies in the existence of certain objective qualities, which influence how a person’s life is measured outside of the realms of subjective experience.
Each of these theories has intrinsic implications. Experientialism, in its more broad sense, implies that some experiences are positive regardless of pleasure. The experiences of reading a tragedy and being in a difficult but educational situation are both possible examples of unpleasant, yet ultimately positive, experiences. That is not to assume that it never uses pleasure as a form of quality measurement, but rather that pleasure is not the only factor in positive experiences. Hedonism, on the other hand, implies that these experiences are not actually positive or worthwhile unless the pleasure one derives from them outweighs the pain and discomfort they also had to endure.
Neither view is actually plausible, as demonstrated by examples from Nozick and Socrates. Nozick’s objection to experientialism stems from the conclusions he makes with respect to his proposed experience machine. If a person were to hook up to this machine, they would be able to choose which experiences they would have on it. Essentially, the machine would be a flawlessly realistic life simulator where one could choose to have better experiences than they might otherwise have. He argued that if the quality of one’s experiences was all that mattered, people would be willing to hook up to such a machine. The fact that many people would not be willing to hook up to it suggests that there are qualities aside from experience that people innately understand to be important. Some possible qualities Nozick listed as being among these are people’s desire to actually do things and to actually be a certain way. Ultimately, Nozick believes it boils down to the idea that humans want to actually live their own lives. Having a sense of reality is something people care about, but which experientialism itself does not hold any value for. Maintaining happiness as a result of ignorance is not really living one’s life. As such, Nozick argued, it is a form of suicide. If a person is not really living then surely their life cannot truly be going well. Subjective perceptions ultimately are not enough when judging reality, and therefore experientialism is clearly flawed.
As hedonism is simply a more specific form of experientialism, it follows that hedonism is at least equally flawed. By examining some examples it becomes clear that hedonism is actually more flawed than experientialism itself, and therefore less plausible. When one brings to mind the differences noted between experientialism and hedonism earlier in this essay, it is clear that there are experiences that contribute to one’s life going better that are not pleasurable by nature, such as the aforementioned reading of a tragedy. Socrates held a few arguments against hedonism, as well. One of these is that pleasure cannot be intrinsically good and pain intrinsically bad because you cannot be doing both well and badly at the same time. In a way, it is similar to being simultaneously healthy and sick, which are actually mutually exclusive traits. This argument does not completely stand up, however, because Callicles could easily have argued that it is the overall balance of pleasure to pain that matters, and not the individual moments. Another argument of Socrates’ is that having quality experience alone is not enough to do well in life. Rather, he feels that one must also be virtuous. While Callicles believes that it is better to knock someone on the jaw than to be knocked on the jaw, Socrates’ view goes back to the experience machine. Having pleasurable experiences alone is not enough - one must also be virtuous. This view has some things in common with Objective List Theories, which state that there are many things that objectively make your life go well - things that a hedonistic lifestyle may lack. Among these are health and virtue. Utilitarian views point out the value of utilizing your talents - something that would not be able to be achieved on Nozick’s machine, and would not be a priority in hedonism unless it was pleasurable. Each of these examples covers possibilities of objectively good things that are not inherently valued in hedonism or the broader experientialism.
In conclusion, Nozick’s experiment with the experience machine makes it clear that there are things of objective importance aside from subjective personal experiences that affect how well one’s life goes. As such, the experiment easily invalidates experientialism. Since hedonism is a type of experientialism it is made void simply by experientialism being invalid. As hedonism is a more specific branch of experientialism, it is natural that it is more flawed. Most notably, hedonism does not value some of the innately positive experiences - one’s other than simple pleasure - that may be deemed to improve the quality of a person’s life. Neither experientialism nor hedonism rationally holds up in light of these arguments.
Prompt:
Should we believe hedonism? Should we believe experientialism? Explain how these views differ and what each implies. Which is the more plausible view? Is either view plausible? Consider objections to each view from Socrates, Callicles, and/or Nozick. Answer or defend the objections in your own terms, in either case suggesting what we learn about the nature of quality of life.
Several methods of measurement have been proposed by philosophers in an attempt to define what it is that objectively makes a person’s life go well. This essay will discuss two types - or more specifically, one general type along with a more specific subset of it. The more general of these two types is experientialism, which is the belief that the quality of one’s life is rooted in the quality of their experiences. Hedonism, a more specific variation of experientialism, measures the quality of experiences exclusively on the pleasure they give a person; otherwise, it follows the same formula. The implausibility of both theories, however, lies in the existence of certain objective qualities, which influence how a person’s life is measured outside of the realms of subjective experience.
Each of these theories has intrinsic implications. Experientialism, in its more broad sense, implies that some experiences are positive regardless of pleasure. The experiences of reading a tragedy and being in a difficult but educational situation are both possible examples of unpleasant, yet ultimately positive, experiences. That is not to assume that it never uses pleasure as a form of quality measurement, but rather that pleasure is not the only factor in positive experiences. Hedonism, on the other hand, implies that these experiences are not actually positive or worthwhile unless the pleasure one derives from them outweighs the pain and discomfort they also had to endure.
Neither view is actually plausible, as demonstrated by examples from Nozick and Socrates. Nozick’s objection to experientialism stems from the conclusions he makes with respect to his proposed experience machine. If a person were to hook up to this machine, they would be able to choose which experiences they would have on it. Essentially, the machine would be a flawlessly realistic life simulator where one could choose to have better experiences than they might otherwise have. He argued that if the quality of one’s experiences was all that mattered, people would be willing to hook up to such a machine. The fact that many people would not be willing to hook up to it suggests that there are qualities aside from experience that people innately understand to be important. Some possible qualities Nozick listed as being among these are people’s desire to actually do things and to actually be a certain way. Ultimately, Nozick believes it boils down to the idea that humans want to actually live their own lives. Having a sense of reality is something people care about, but which experientialism itself does not hold any value for. Maintaining happiness as a result of ignorance is not really living one’s life. As such, Nozick argued, it is a form of suicide. If a person is not really living then surely their life cannot truly be going well. Subjective perceptions ultimately are not enough when judging reality, and therefore experientialism is clearly flawed.
As hedonism is simply a more specific form of experientialism, it follows that hedonism is at least equally flawed. By examining some examples it becomes clear that hedonism is actually more flawed than experientialism itself, and therefore less plausible. When one brings to mind the differences noted between experientialism and hedonism earlier in this essay, it is clear that there are experiences that contribute to one’s life going better that are not pleasurable by nature, such as the aforementioned reading of a tragedy. Socrates held a few arguments against hedonism, as well. One of these is that pleasure cannot be intrinsically good and pain intrinsically bad because you cannot be doing both well and badly at the same time. In a way, it is similar to being simultaneously healthy and sick, which are actually mutually exclusive traits. This argument does not completely stand up, however, because Callicles could easily have argued that it is the overall balance of pleasure to pain that matters, and not the individual moments. Another argument of Socrates’ is that having quality experience alone is not enough to do well in life. Rather, he feels that one must also be virtuous. While Callicles believes that it is better to knock someone on the jaw than to be knocked on the jaw, Socrates’ view goes back to the experience machine. Having pleasurable experiences alone is not enough - one must also be virtuous. This view has some things in common with Objective List Theories, which state that there are many things that objectively make your life go well - things that a hedonistic lifestyle may lack. Among these are health and virtue. Utilitarian views point out the value of utilizing your talents - something that would not be able to be achieved on Nozick’s machine, and would not be a priority in hedonism unless it was pleasurable. Each of these examples covers possibilities of objectively good things that are not inherently valued in hedonism or the broader experientialism.
In conclusion, Nozick’s experiment with the experience machine makes it clear that there are things of objective importance aside from subjective personal experiences that affect how well one’s life goes. As such, the experiment easily invalidates experientialism. Since hedonism is a type of experientialism it is made void simply by experientialism being invalid. As hedonism is a more specific branch of experientialism, it is natural that it is more flawed. Most notably, hedonism does not value some of the innately positive experiences - one’s other than simple pleasure - that may be deemed to improve the quality of a person’s life. Neither experientialism nor hedonism rationally holds up in light of these arguments.