Nozick on Happiness, Hedonism, and the Experience Machine

Introduction: Two Visions of a Happy Life

Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick made an interesting observation about happiness. Suppose one were to reflect on two different lives that contain the same total amount of happiness. One life begins at a low point and continues to improve with each passing moment. The second life, by contrast, begins on a high note and moves steadily downward toward an unhappy ending. The eternal question is, of course, which one would be preferable? Like the majority of people, I would choose the life that begins at a low point and slopes upward.

Nozick believed that this preference says something fundamental about the human relationship with happiness. Humans, by nature, are seeking something more than a mere total sum of happiness over a lifetime. Nozick refers to this as the "narrative direction" of happiness, and finds that we as humans seek structure in our positive experiences. Rather than hope to achieve a lump sum of happiness all at once, most humans wish for their good times to be spread out and to combat the negative experiences they encounter along the way.

The Experience Machine and the Limits of Hedonism

Nozick also devised another fascinating philosophical dilemma — one of countless brilliant examinations of the human condition. Suppose a machine existed that could create positive, realistic experiences while the user floats carelessly in a tank. Although the experiences are fabricated, they feel as real as anything in genuine reality, and therefore the line between real and unreal becomes blurred. Because it is a machine, it can be programmed to provide a far superior experience to the real world. One could, in theory, lead a better life by simply remaining motionless, wired into this "experience machine." Nozick asked whether it would be better to spend one's entire life connected to it.

Surprisingly — or perhaps not surprisingly at all — most people would answer "no." I would personally choose not to live in the machine. Nozick successfully constructed an argument against hedonism through the choices of those who decline to plug in. He also offered several grounded reasons to reject the machine. First, humans desire free will, and therefore prefer the ability to choose whether or not to commit an action rather than merely experience a simulation of it. Second, people want to be unique individuals; being plugged into a machine would reduce a person to a passive, undifferentiated mass. Most importantly, because the machine is man-made, the user is limited to the reality imagined by its creator — a reality far less varied and with far less potential than genuine life. Although the fabricated reality is stimulating and supposedly more pleasing, it ultimately becomes predictable and constrictive.

Both of these concepts suggest that there is far more to the human condition than can currently be understood. There are, indeed, some individuals who would choose to enter the machine — perhaps those who have had deeply difficult home lives or have encountered great tragedy they cannot bear. Many such people share the quality of being downtrodden and see a pleasant experience in a tank as a desirable alternative to their circumstances. Yet this weary, cynical group represents only a minority. The large majority of humans, even those who have led unpleasant lives, would choose to forgo the machine.

Nozick's philosophical argument addresses the practical concerns raised by the experiment by adding further possibilities, each of which reveals even more about human nature. He sets aside questions about who operates the machine while the user is plugged in, stipulating simply that it will function properly. He also proposes an alternative to a pre-determined lifetime inside the machine by allowing the user to step out periodically and change the settings. Nozick argues that these modifications do not change the outcome: most people would still choose an authentic life experience over a fabrication.

In the same vein, there are perhaps even fewer human beings who would choose to begin their lives in the happiest manner possible and then experience a downward slope from that point onward. There is little justification for arguing the superiority of such a lifespan, while there is firm reasoning behind the choice of an upwardly mobile one. In a life moving in an upward direction, each experience improves upon the last — which is itself a positive experience, and therefore increases the overall value of that life. It is this juxtaposition of bad-then-good experiences that attracts humans. Since our lives move along the constraints of time, it is only natural to long for this upward expansion, this step-by-step path toward pleasure. Human nature suggests that in order to truly appreciate happiness, we must first experience what it is like to feel bad, so that we gain perspective on the positive experience when it arrives. It is a forward-moving outlook that heightens the value of the good experiences we encounter.