Nozick's Argument Against Hedonism

413 Words2 Pages
Nozick’s Argument by Using the Experience Machine Against Hedonism (Nozick, pp. 28) 1. If the theory of hedonism is accurate, then going into the experience machine will give a person a larger amount of pleasure than a person who is abstaining from the experience machine. 2. However, humans desire to physically do certain activities rather than simply having the experience of doing them. 3. Therefore, the theory of hedonism is inaccurate. Nozick’s argument against the theory of hedonism is flawed because humans are able to gain as much pleasure in reality as from the experience machine. This flaw is damaging to Nozick’s argument because it does not precisely disprove the theory of hedonism; the fact that most would prefer to execute their…show more content…
Therefore, cultural relativism is imperfect. Gensler’s argument against cultural relativism is flawed because although moral views are inconsistent, local standards still determine even the most basic moral principles, so hurting others would be appropriate if the community approved of it. This flaw is damaging to Gensler’s argument because cultural relativism claims that anything that is socially approved must be good, and clearly a number of things would not be considered moral by most people. Hobbes’ Argument for Leaving the State of Nature (Hobbes, pp. 105) 1. If people were in the state of nature, then they would naturally avert doing anything that is detrimental to their well-being. 2. If people had to defend themselves from the harm of other people, then complete disorder would occur. 3. Therefore, the most ideal course of action to escape destruction would be to stay peaceful and cooperate with the people around you. Hobbes’ argument for leaving the state of nature is flawed because people are nonviolent due to their own self-interest, not for the prosperity of others- which can easily lead to corruption and disunity. This flaw is damaging to Hobbes’ argument because not everybody is willing to give up their free will or follow the obligations of the social contract to protect the
Open Document