The Experience Machine: Summary of Robert Nozick’s ‘Thought Experiment’ Essay Example

of stress be compared to a lifetime of bliss (Nozick 1974; 43).

Nozick further describs the “Experience Machine” as having been used as a thought experiment in numerous classrooms all over the world to test if there is more life than just feeling happy. He then asks if we could accept the offer of such a machine, get connected to it and feel constantly happy enjoying pleasurable sensations and get more satisfactions with our lives. This imaginary machine for the thought-experiment machine will allow us to strip away practical questions and test our willingness to live in a blissful state of getting disconnected from reality.

NOZICK’S REACTION TO HIS OWN QUESTION

Nozick’s question is “would you want to plug it in?” He, however, opposes his own question by using three different reasons: 1) “we want to do certain things and not just have the experience of doing them”, 2) we all want to be a certain kind of person, and 3) we are only human and nothing deeper than we can construct. Nozick’s answer to the hedonistic argument is that we should simply not accept to connect to such kind of a machine. Pleasure is not the only thing.

According to Robert Nozick, what gives meaning to life is more than just the experiences one can have as an individual. He explains that a meaningful life is spent as an active agent who is able to shape his life accordingly to adopted plans and not just by just as a passive recipient of experiences. Nozick’s thought experiment is purely intended to discredit the utilitarian’s claim that all that matters are the experiences. In a scenario where

Nozick asks us to have the option of plugging into machines that can make use have nice experiences; the question is if we should plug into such a machine. Utilitarian will be willing to be committed to plug into such a thing, as the machines will allow us to maximize pleasurable experiences andd that is all what matters to the utilitarian. However, Nozick argues that it is wrong to plug into such a machine as it will imply that we are subjects of pleasurable experiences. Such action will undermine people’s status of being active agents who lead their own lives. Nozick notes, “What is more disturbing about them is their living of our lives for us” (Nozick, p.44). This simply means that as a person, we are not just a passive locus of utility or even a subject of experiences, but autonomous human beings who decide on their own volitions how to live their own lives, setting and pursuing different ends.

MY OWN CRITICAL RESPONSE

First, I agree with Nozick’s answer that human beings are not objects of pleasure and we should instead take into account the importance of being able to shape our lies for a more meaningful life. Such experiments will only add to violate our rights and fail to treat us as human beings, but end to undercutting our ability to impart meaning to our lives and treat us as sheer tools with no real meaning or significance of life. I also believe that happiness can only be attainable through action but not through handcrafted experiences. Nozick clearly demonstrates to us that it is important to live in a life that we

believe in; that which has reality and truth in it. This will allow us to appreciate our differences and uniqueness than use of methods that will escape us from reality.

CONCLUSION

In this thought experiment, Nozick wants to demonstrate a claim against utilitarianism, thereby raising the question of what matters other than experiences. He thus makes readers realize that we cannot plug into such experience machine even if it was possible. This arouses the question of why felt experiences will dictate what can and cannot be done to an animal.