Philosophy Exam 2 Q7 - Utilitarianism, the Experience Machine, and the Utility Monster

Utilitarianism combines consequentialism, hedonism, and maximalism. Explain the central claim of each of these views and explain how they combine to produce the utilitarian theory of morality.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that combines consequentialism, hedonism, and maximalism. Each view answers a different question about morality. Consequentialism explains what determines whether an action is right or wrong: its consequences. Hedonism explains what makes consequences good or bad: pleasure and the absence of pain are intrinsically good, while pain and suffering are intrinsically bad. Maximalism explains how much good an action must produce: a morally right action must produce the greatest possible overall balance of good over bad consequences among the available alternatives.

Consequentialism holds that the moral status of an action depends entirely upon the results it produces. Motives, intentions, rules, and duties may matter in practical life, but they are not morally fundamental on this view. They matter only insofar as they tend to produce good or bad outcomes. An action is right if it produces good consequences and wrong if it produces bad consequences. For example, a utilitarian would not say that lying is always wrong simply because it violates a rule. Instead, the moral status of lying would depend on whether it produces more overall good or harm than the alternatives.

Consequentialism by itself does not specify what counts as a good consequence. Someone could be a consequentialist while believing that knowledge, virtue, equality, beauty, or happiness is the ultimate good. Hedonism supplies the utilitarian answer. Hedonism holds that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things valuable in themselves. Other things, such as money, health, friendship, education, or fame, can still be valuable, but only instrumentally. They are good when they tend to create pleasure, prevent suffering, or make a happy life possible. Money, for instance, is not valuable merely because it is money; it is valuable because it can help provide food, shelter, security, and opportunities for enjoyment.

Maximalism adds a further requirement. It is not enough for an action to produce some happiness or prevent some pain. The right action must produce at least as much net good as every available alternative. If one possible action would produce five units of happiness while another would produce ten, maximalism says that the second action is morally required, assuming there are no greater harms that outweigh its benefits. Utilitarianism therefore does not merely encourage people to do good when convenient. It requires them to maximize the total balance of happiness over suffering.

Together, these three claims create classical utilitarianism. Consequentialism says that morality depends on outcomes. Hedonism says that the relevant good outcome is pleasure or happiness and the absence of pain. Maximalism says that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest overall net happiness. Thus, an action is right if and only if it produces at least as much total happiness, minus suffering, as any other action available to the agent. Because the theory counts everyone’s happiness equally, the happiness of the person acting does not automatically matter more than the happiness of anyone else affected.

Then explain the Experience Machine and Utility Monster thought experiments. Why do people generally seem unwilling to enter the Experience Machine? Explain how this is a challenge to hedonism.

Robert Nozick’s Experience Machine challenges the hedonistic part of utilitarianism. Nozick asks us to imagine a machine created by highly skilled neuropsychologists that could give a person any experiences they wanted. A person connected to the machine could feel as though they were writing an important novel, forming deep friendships, traveling the world, becoming successful, or accomplishing anything else they desired. While connected, the person would not know that the experiences were artificial. From the inside, life in the machine would feel completely real and pleasurable.

If hedonism were true, entering the Experience Machine for life should be an obvious choice. The machine could provide a lifetime of pleasurable experiences while avoiding disappointment, pain, failure, and boredom. Yet many people say they would not plug in. Their refusal suggests that they value more than pleasant internal experiences.

One reason is that people want to actually do certain things rather than merely have the experience of doing them. Someone may want to write a genuinely excellent novel, not merely feel as if they wrote one while floating in a tank. A second reason is that people want to be certain kinds of persons. They want to become courageous, compassionate, intelligent, creative, or wise through real action and development. A person in the machine may feel brave or accomplished, but they are not actually developing those traits through contact with the world. Finally, people often value an authentic connection to reality. Genuine relationships, truth, achievement, and agency seem more valuable than an enjoyable illusion, even when the illusion feels exactly the same from the inside.

The Experience Machine therefore challenges hedonism because it suggests that pleasure is not the only thing that matters. If people reasonably prefer a life containing real action, authentic relationships, personal development, and truth over a more pleasurable artificial life, then those things appear to have value beyond their contribution to pleasant feelings. Hedonism treats subjective experience as the sole standard of value, but the thought experiment suggests that a good human life must involve more than how life feels.

What is a utility monster, and why might maximizing total happiness require that nearly all social resources be devoted to it? Explain how this case challenges maximalism and raises concerns about fairness and the separateness of persons.

Nozick’s Utility Monster challenges maximalism and the utilitarian practice of aggregating happiness across persons. The Utility Monster is a hypothetical creature that receives enormously more pleasure from resources than ordinary people do. For every unit of food, money, shelter, or entertainment given to it, the monster experiences a massive increase in happiness—far greater than the happiness an ordinary person would receive from the same resource.

Because utilitarianism requires maximizing total happiness, it might require society to give nearly all of its resources to the Utility Monster. Even if millions of ordinary people lost access to resources and became significantly worse off, the monster’s enormous gains in pleasure could outweigh their losses when all happiness is added together. The result would be a higher total amount of utility, so maximalist utilitarianism could appear to require this extremely unequal distribution.

This conclusion raises concerns about fairness. Utilitarianism focuses on the total amount of happiness rather than how happiness is distributed. It may treat a world in which one being has nearly all the happiness and everyone else suffers as morally better than a world in which happiness is shared more equally, as long as the first world has a slightly larger total. Many people believe that this ignores an important moral concern: it is not fair to sacrifice the basic interests of millions of people merely to provide one being with additional pleasure.

The Utility Monster also raises Nozick’s concern about the separateness of persons. Utilitarianism combines everyone’s benefits and burdens into one total, as though the happiness of one person could simply compensate for the suffering of another. But separate individuals do not experience life as one collective person. The fact that the monster gains enormous pleasure does not erase the deprivation experienced by the people whose resources are taken away. Treating their losses as acceptable because someone else gains more can seem to treat individuals as mere containers of utility rather than as distinct persons with their own claims, rights, and interests.

The Experience Machine and Utility Monster therefore identify two different pressures on utilitarianism. The Experience Machine argues that pleasure may not be the only intrinsic good, challenging hedonism. The Utility Monster argues that maximizing the total amount of happiness can lead to unfair and deeply unequal outcomes, challenging maximalism and aggregation. Together, these cases suggest that an adequate moral theory may need to recognize values besides pleasure and may need to take fairness, rights, and the separate claims of individual persons more seriously.

yay!

you hopefully know how to write 2 good essays!