Many philosophers contest the idea that enjoying oneself is equivalent to being happy. To prove that having enjoyable experiences that are in contact with reality is necessary for happiness, Nozick proposed the experience machine thought experiment (Nozick). In this hypothetical scenario, users can opt to connect to a device that only generates good feelings. If pleasure were the sole intrinsic value, according to Nozick, people would have a compelling motive to be linked up to an “experience machine” that would generate pleasurable feelings. According to the first reading of Nozick’s thesis, there are compelling arguments against utilizing the machine. Nozick generally holds that each person is endowed with certain fundamental rights from birth. There is no need for a system to attain moral equilibrium because these individual rights are of the utmost importance.
In my opinion, Nozick’s argument is a successful refutation of Mill’s utilitarianism. By arguing that life is more about being able to genuinely live one’s life and experience everything for oneself than it is about getting the maximum pleasure or value out of something, Nozick, in a sense, refutes the assertion made by many utilitarians. The prospect of utility creatures, who get vastly more substantial amounts of benefit from the sacrifices of others than these others lose, embarrasses utilitarian philosophy (Mill). The strategy appears to demand that human sacrifices be made in the monster’s gaping mouth in order to boost overall utility. The moment someone plugs into the machine, all these facets of life are taken away. Moreover, utilitarianism seems to neglect these facets of life by concentrating only on things that make people or other individuals happy.
Although eudaimonia is happiness for many, finding eudaimonia by multiple means is not the key to happiness. According to Aristotle, Eudaimonia is the highest form of human happiness, whereas true joy is an internal emotion. In the Enlightenment meaning, happiness is typically thought of as a succession of recurrent joys. On the other side, eudaimonia is an action that lasts a lifetime.
Eudaimonia, according to Aristotle, entails philosophical or scientific reflection that reflects the intellectual virtues of conceptual wisdom and insight (Irwin). However, he conceded that political behavior reflects moral characteristics like justice and temperance, and practical understanding is, to a lesser extent, eudaimonia. Furthermore, the intellectual and moral excellences or virtues that make up this system are not innate skills or knowledge that can be picked up quickly; instead, they are enduring qualities that can only be developed over time through routine, the ability to reflect, and the advantages of relevant social experiences and influences.
Although there are social experiences and influences on people, Aristotle claims that moral virtue is the propensity to act morally and serves as a midpoint between excess and deficiency, both of which are considered vices. Aristotle claims that someone must have acted deliberately in order to be judged morally accountable (Irwin). Two factors, in particular, must be right: the person must be in charge of their activities and cognizant of what they are doing. The virtuous individual demonstrates the joint quality of reason and character in accordance with Aristotle’s ethical theory (Irwin). The moral person is emotionally invested in doing what is reasonable and is aware of it. According to Aristotle, there are moral behaviors that are infallibly right (Irwin). This is demonstrated by his conviction that ten individuals with phronesis would all reach the same moral conclusion in the same circumstance.
Morality should be based on the fact that all humans possess the capacity for reason and that it is this capacity that gives humans moral significance. No consequence, according to Kant, can have intrinsic moral value; the only good that is good in and of itself is benevolence (Kant, “Moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals”). Since it is only guided by reason, it freely chooses to carry out its moral obligation. People cannot develop an ethical framework solely via goodwill. According to Kant, absolute necessity, as it is commonly known, is the core philosophy of all morality (Kant, “Moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals”). Thus, moral obligation is absolute, and goodwill is the use of one is free will that is solely motivated by rationality.
When individuals consider the reasons why lying or breaking a commitment is morally wrong, Kant argues that lying is evil since it violates the universal law. Promises are legally enforceable if they are accepted because, by doing so, the offeree gains ownership of the offeror’s decision to carry out the specified action. According to Kant, lying is immoral and could never be a moral rule (Kant, “Lectures on ethics”). Since everyone would be aware of the aim of the lie and no one would believe it, lying could not be held to stem from the belief and eventually destroys itself.
An example of immoral behavior can be a factor of bad influence on people through coercion to actions like drinking alcohol. Forcing someone to do something is an example of immoral behavior toward other people. If people use Kant’s value system, they can analyze this situation as immoral (O’Neill). According to Kant, an immoral act can be unproductive, self-destructive, and stop development (Kant, “Lectures on ethics”). Immoral describes a person or behavior that conscientiously goes against accepted morals and beliefs about behaving in a way considered right and good by most people.
Works Cited
Irwin, T. H. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1999.
Kant, Immanuel. Moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Routledge, 2013.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Seven masterpieces of philosophy. Routledge, 2016.
Nozick, Robert. The experience machine. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013.
O’Neill, Onora. A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. Contemporary Moral Problems. West Publishing Co., 1985.