PPE Essay 2

Should ‘wellbeing’ be understood in terms of the balance of pleasure over pain? Present the
strongest objection you think hedonism faces, and try to answer the objection on behalf of the view.

The philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, stated that ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’ (Moore, 2018). The notion of hedonism, best defined as
the desire of pleasure and contentment, over pain and discomfort, is a topic often discussed in
relation to wellbeing. Hedonism can be divided in to two main branches: psychological hedonism
and moral hedonism. The former refers to the idea of people being motivated by the pleasure over
pain principle, while the latter refers to how the pleasure over pain principle should be implemented
within our ethics system (Silverstein, 2000). Many scholars have also recently begun to advocate the
idea of using hedonism as a basis to implement social policies within states (Hausman, 2010).
Indeed, hedonism has been at the forefront of the debate in relation to wellbeing and ethics since
the time of the ancient philosophers. In this essay, I will examine the notion of hedonism by raising
and evaluating a number of challenges linked to the idea that humans should understand wellbeing
through solely pursuing pleasure over pain. The first of which will revolve around Nozick’s
hypothetical scenario of the ‘experience machine’ as an objection to the notion of hedonism and
what this indicates about the desires of human beings (1974). The second objection centres around
the ethical idea of the ‘philosophy of swine’. This would reduce human beings to purely pursuing
pleasure in an almost animalistic and immoral manner, causing them to become solely concerned
with their own immediate wellbeing. I will then respond and attempt to counter these objections
from a hedonistic view.

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges that the notion of psychological hedonism has faced, that is,
hedonism as a motivating factor within our lives, has been through the thought experiment put forth
by Robert Nozick commonly referred to as the ‘experience machine’ (1974). If the main contention
of the philosophy of hedonism is to maximise wellbeing through pleasure minus pain, human beings
would theoretically feel more comfortable and be more willing to attach themselves to a machine
that purely and solely stimulates pleasurable emotions. Yet, if we analyse two examples of people,
where one experiences pleasure in real life, while also experiencing the inevitable pain that life
naturally brings and one is attached to a machine that merely simulates pleasurable experiences,
most people would likely choose the former (Fletcher, 2016). In fact, in Guy Fletcher’s ‘Trudy and
Flora’ hypothetical scenario, both Trudy and Flora are supposed to have equal amounts of pleasure
through the same hedonic levels (2016). However, even in the case of Trudy and Flora there would
be many who would prefer to live life outside a machine and there would also be some who would
state that the life of Flora (who is attached to the machine) would be an ‘utterly wretched awful’ life
(Fletcher, 2016). The cases presented by of Nozick and Fletcher therefore indicate that the sole
purpose of wellbeing is not and should not be entirely understood through the balance of pleasure
over pain. People prefer to ‘be’ and exist within a more natural and genuine state, which inevitably
would include pain and unpleasant experiences, rather than live their life for the sole pursuit of
pleasure and the avoidance of pain. In other words, wellbeing within our life is not restricted to the
simple notion of ‘experiences’ of pain and pleasure (Nozick, 1974).
In addition to the mere notion of ‘experiences’, meaningfulness has a further impact upon wellbeing
within our lifetime. We, as humans, prefer to distinguish ourselves from other species through the
idea that our lives are more than just experiences of pain and pleasure and that we inherit a sort of
intrinsic, meaningful value that animals would lack (Hauskeller, 2011). This objection to moral
hedonism is known as the ‘philosophy of swine’ objection, that is, that if pleasure and pain are the
only factors that should be understood in relation to the wellbeing of a person, human life would
have the same intrinsic value as a pig’s life. The problem occurs here for hedonists, in that measuring
pleasures objectively can become quite difficult and there exists very little consideration for different
types of pleasures that we intuitively know exist, (Gregory, 2017) between humans and animals.
Furthermore, if moral hedonism is advocated through social, economic and political policies and
norms, hedonism would be difficult to implement within society through objectively rational means.
This is because people would begin to chase immediate, kinetic pleasures that are associated with
physical pleasures that can become harmful within the long term to themselves and others.
Examples of this are things such as alcohol, sex and drugs which bring immediate kinetic pleasure,
yet bring harm in the future to the individual and potentially to society as a whole. Evidently, in this
sense it is difficult for hedonists to first, generally quantify feelings of pleasure and secondly,
measure the quality of sensation that different forms of pleasure bring (Gregory, 2017). Unless
advocates of hedonism can create a method that would objectively measure the quantity and quality
of pleasure and implement this systematically upon people within society, hedonism would remain
as a ‘philosophy of swine’. And this would potentially reduce humans to animalistic behaviours of
seeking immediate, short term pleasure and prioritising pleasure that may actually cause pain in the
long run.

However, counter arguments can be made from a hedonistic perspective towards the challenges
raised by Noack’s experience machine and the ‘philosophy of swine’ argument. In relation to the
idea of the ‘experience machine’, although the thought experiment upholds a coherent argument
against the idea of psychological hedonism, it fails to acknowledge our ‘status quo bias’ when
analysing the lives of two people attached and de-attached to a machine (Weijers, 2014) That is,
when we attempt to inspect the ‘experience machine’ scenario in terms of which person is within a
better state of wellbeing, we are unfairly affected by the norm of already being de-attached from
such a machine and never being able to practically live within an ‘experience machine’ (Fletcher,
2016). This then produces a biased verdict in favour of how our lives have already been established
throughout time, that is, in favour of life outside the experience machine. A response can also be
made to the idea of the ‘philosophy of swine’ and the apparent ‘impracticality’ and ‘reduction to
animal behaviour’ associated to implementing moral hedonism within an ethical framework upon
society. In terms of impracticality, the objection raised in relation to people pursuing short term
pleasure that is indeed harmful is not a flaw within moral hedonism per se, but rather points out the
ignorance of society and a misunderstanding of what is truly pleasurable for us (Kenney et al., 2008).
Therefore, the idea of hedonism can be implemented within society in a social, political and
economic sense if the correct knowledge is given to people in relation to what is more or less
pleasurable for them in the short and long term (Kenney et al., 2008). This will then allow for a more
sophisticated approach to practical hedonism and allow people to determine what is pleasurable
and painful through their own rational, cognitive process. Logically, this would unveil a philosophy
that maintains a ‘non-animalistic’, moral, ethical framework based on reason rather than whim.
It can be concluded that the notion of hedonism in relation to our wellbeing can be understood
through the balance of pain and pleasure to a certain extent. Indeed, valid objections can be made
to the notion of hedonism, especially in relation to accurately measuring the quantity and quality of
the different forms of pleasure that we pursue. At the same time, logical arguments can be made in
favour of especially psychological hedonism, in that human beings are immensely motivated through
the concept of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain in order to achieve a substantial form of
wellbeing.

1311 words

FLETCHER, G. 2016. The Philosophy of well-being: An introduction, Routledge.

GREGORY, A. 2017. Hedonism. The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Well Being., 113-122.
HAUSKELLER, M. 2011. No philosophy for swine: John Stuart Mill on the quality of pleasures. Utilitas,
23, 428-446.
HAUSMAN, D. M. 2010. Hedonism and welfare economics. Economics & Philosophy, 26, 321-344.
KENNEY, E., DENYER, N., EASTERLING, P., HARDIE, P. & HUNTER, R. 2008. Plato: Protagoras,
Cambridge University Press.
MOORE, A. 2018. Hedonism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
NOZICK, R. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia, New York: Basic Books.
SILVERSTEIN, M. 2000. In defense of happiness: A response to the experience machine. Social Theory
and Practice, 26, 279-300.
WEIJERS, D. 2014. Nozick's experience machine is dead, long live the experience machine!
Philosophical Psychology, 27, 513-535.