Ethics for A-Level

Front matter

To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions

Go to:

https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/639

Contents

PREFACE 1. Exam Specification Details 2. Book Structure References INTRODUCTION 1. Philosophy, Ethics and Thinking ao H WwW N

. Respecting Ethics

. The A-Level Student

Part I Normative Ethics Chapter1 Utilitarianism

. Hedonism

Utilitarianism: An Introduction

. Nozick's Experience Machine

. The Foundations of Bentham's Utilitarianism . The Structure of Bentham's Utilitarianism

. Hedonic Calculus

. Problems with Bentham's Utilitarianism

. Mill's Utilitarian Proof

Ne mne ER

Os O10 A CQ W Ww oo CONN O

11 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 20

Chapter 2

9. Mill’s Qualitative Utilitarianism

10. Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism versus Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism

11. Strong versus Weak Rule Utilitarianism 12. Comparing the Classical Utilitarians

13. Non-Hedonistic Contemporary Utilitarianism: Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism

Key Terminology References

KANTIAN ETHICS 1. An Introduction to Kantian Ethics 2. Some Key Ideas

3. Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in Accordance with Duty

4. Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives

5. The First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

6. Perfect and Imperfect Duties 7. Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

8. The Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative and Summary

9. Kant on Suicide 10. Problems and Responses: Conflicting Duties 11. Problems and Responses: The Role of Intuitions

12. Problem and Responses: Categorical Imperatives and Etiquette

13. Problems and Responses: The Domain of Morality Summary

21 22

23 24 24

26 26 26 27 28

31 31 32 33

34 36

37 38 38

39 42 43 43

44 45 45 45 46 47

Chapter 4 Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Introduction . The Function Argument

. Aristotelian Goodness

. Eudaimonia and Virtue

. Developing the Virtues

. Practical Wisdom (Phronesis)

. Voluntary Actions, Involuntary Actions and Moral Responsibility 8. Objection: Unclear Guidance 9. Objection: Clashing Virtues 10. Objection: Circularity 11. Objection: Contribution to Eudaimonia 12. Moral Good and Individual Good Summary Common Student Mistakes Issues to Consider Key Terminology References

AQUINAS'S NATURAL LAW THEORY 1. Introduction to Aquinas

2. Motivating Natural Law Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory

3. Natural Law Theory 4. Summary of Aquinas's Natural Law Theory

5. Putting this into Practice: The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

6. Some Thoughts about Natural Law Theory Summary

49 49 49 50 51 54 55 56

65 65 65

66 70 70

73 75 75 75 76 77

CHAPTER5 FLETCHER'S SITUATION ETHICS

5. 6.

Summary

Situation Ethics Introduction

2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework 3. 4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a

The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Verb not a Noun The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism

Key Terminology References

PART II METAETHICS CHAPTER6 METAETHICAL THEORIES oo "10 OF à WN Q2

. Metaethics: Introduction

. The Value of Metaethics

. Cognitivism versus Non-Cognitivism . Realism versus Anti-Realism

. The Metaethical Map

. Cognitivist and Realist Theory One: Naturalism . Objections to Naturalism

. Cognitivist and Realist Theory Two:

Non-Naturalism

. Objections to Intuitionism

10. Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One: Moral

Error Theory

. Objections to Moral Error Theory . Non-Cognitivism . Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One:

Emotivism

. Objections to Emotivism . Non-Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory Two:

Prescriptivism

Objections to Prescriptivism

79 79 80 81 83

83 86 88 88 88 89 89

105 106

110 111 112

113 115

115 116

Part III Chapter 7

CHAPTER 8

APPLIED ETHICS

EUTHANASIA

1. . Key Terms

Oo ON BD OF FSF W N m m mM C

Euthanasia Introduction

. Case One: Persistent Vegetative State

. Case Two: Incurable and Terminal Illness . Pro-Euthanasia: Argument One

. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Two

. Pro-Euthanasia: Argument Three

. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument One

. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Two

. Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Three . Anti-Euthanasia: Argument Four 12.

Allowing versus Doing

BUSINESS ETHICS

1. . Employers and Employees

O1 AeA C N

Introduction to Business Ethics

. Businesses and Customers . A Business and the Environment

. Business and Globalization

Summary Common Student Mistakes Issues to Consider

117 117 118 119

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CONSCIENCE

. Introduction

. The History of Conscience . Aquinas on Conscience

. Freud and the Conscience oF WN e

. Freud’s Psychosexual Development Theory Summary

SEXUAL ETHICS 1. Philosophy of Sex Introduction . What Is It to “Have Sex"? . Natural Law and Sex . Kant and Sex

. Sex and Utilitarianism

ON oO d W KN

. Sex and the Virtue Theory Summary

STEALING 1. Stealing: Introduction . Defining Stealing . Kantian Ethics on Stealing . Act and Preference Utilitarianism on Stealing . Rule Utilitarianism on Stealing

. Virtue Ethics on Stealing

N OA OF RAUN

. Metaethics and Stealing Summary Common Student Mistakes

CHAPTER 12 SIMULATED KILLING oF OQ N

1. . Utilitarianism and Simulated Killing

. The Kantian and the Virtue Ethics Approach . Films and Plays

Introduction

. The Paradox of Tragedy (or More Correctly the

Paradox of “Negative Emotions”)

Key Terminology References

CHAPTER 13 TELLING LIES oF C N

1. . What Is It to Lie?

. Utilitarianism

Introduction

. The Kantian and Lying

. Some Final Thoughts about the Political Context Summary

CHAPTER 14 EATING ANIMALS

ON oO d W NY

1. . Justifying Meat Eating

Eating Animals Introduction

. Act Utilitarianism . Challenges to Bentham . Utilitarian Reasons for Eating Animals

. Kantian Ethics and Eating Animals

195 196 196

199 199 201 203 203 204

205 206 206 207 207

7. Virtue Ethics and Eating Animals 8. Cora Diamond

Preface

1. Exam Specification Details

This book deals with the Ethics components of AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies. It has been written in line with these specifications, covering the material necessary in a way that, we hope, is engaging for students, teachers and anyone interested in understanding ethical study.

Some chapters are, therefore, directly relevant only to one of these two courses. Students studying Ethics as part of OCR Religious Studies do not need to read about the ethics of simulated killing, while students studying AQA Philosophy do not need to consider Natural Law or Situation Ethics. This is not to say that there is not, we hope, some independent value in engaging with these chapters as part of your wider reading.

However, the split is not always so clear. Both OCR and AQA require students to engage with the theory of Utilitarianism, for example. However, the specifications differ slightly and so not all of the content is relevant to all students; relevance will depend on the course being sat. We suggest two options in dealing with this:

e Early on in your course — engage with the content in the chapter regardless of your specification. This should give you a full and informed context in which to evaluate the theory.

* Later in your course and nearer exams — use your specification to focus on the exact content that may figure in your exam. Your teacher is best placed to advise you on this.

2. Book Structure

In writing this book we followed Andrew Fisher's approach of focusing on the judgement of the student in evaluating when they are being taught effectively.’ We take the student as authoritative on this matter; we want to create an “engaged” student. To this end we include ways that students can check their judgements on whether the material has taught them anything or not. For example, we include sections on “Common Student Mistakes”, “Issues to Consider” and “Key Terminology” within every chapter.

1 This approach can also be found in: Fisher and Tallant, How to Get Philosophy Students Talking.

Following the specification requirements of AQA and OCR, the book deals with Normative Ethics, then Metaethics and finally Applied Ethics. What is the difference?

Consider an analogy put forward by Andrew Fisher (2011).” Imagine that ethics is like football.

* The normative ethicist is like a referee interested in the rules governing play. What interests him is the general theories that govern our moral behaviour; how do we work out what is right and what is wrong?

* The metaethicist is like a football commentator. What interests her is how the very practice of ethics works. For example, the metaethicist might discuss how people use moral language; or comment on the psychology of immoral people; or ask whether moral properties exist.

* The Applied Ethicists are like the players. They “get their hands [or feet] dirty". They take the general rules of normative ethics and “play” under them. What interests them is how we should act in specific areas. For example, how should we deal with issues like meat-eating, euthanasia or stealing?

So guided by the AQA and OCR exam specifications, you will find various normative theories explained. You will then find those theories applied to real life examples. Sandwiched between these is the Metaethics chapter which asks: "But what is ethical practice?"

With all three types of ethics covered we hope to provide a good grounding in ethics, both in terms of content and a general philosophical approach. Where possible we give as many examples as possible and avoid technical jargon, although sometimes we need to use specific philosophical terms. With this in mind we have included an extensive Glossary at the end of the volume. Our hope is that you will feel able to pick up this book dip into it, or read it from cover to cover. Whatever you choose we hope you'll gain confidence with the content needed for your exams, that you practice and strengthen your ability to think with clear reasoning and with justification about the topics covered, and get as excited and fascinated by ethics as we are.

Fisher, Andrew, Metaethics: An Introduction (Oxford: Routledge, 2011), https:// doi.org/10.1017/upo9781844652594

—, and Tallant, Jonathan, How to Get Students Talking: An Instructors Toolkit (Oxford: Routledge, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670645

2 Fisher, Metaethics, pp. 1-4.

Introduction

1. Philosophy, Ethics and Thinking

Philosophy is hard. Part of the reason it can feel so annoying is because it seems like it should not be hard. After all, philosophy just involves thinking, and we all think — thinking is easy! We do it without...well, thinking. Yet philosophy involves not just thinking, but thinking well. Of course it is true that we all think. But thinking, like football, maths, baking and singing is something we can get better at. Unfortunately, people rarely ask how. If you do not believe us, then just open your eyes. Society might be a whole lot better off if we thought well, more often.

Admittedly, doing A-Level Philosophy will not give you the ability to solve the problems of the world; we are not that naive! But if you engage with philosophy, then you will be developing yourself as a thinker who thinks well. This is why A-Level Philosophy is useful not merely to would-be philosophers, but also to any would be thinkers, perhaps heading off to make decisions in law, medicine, structural engineering — just about anything that requires you to think effectively and clearly.

However, if Philosophy is hard, then Ethics is really hard. This might seem unlikely at first glance. After all, Ethics deals with issues of right and wrong, and we have been discussing “what is right” and “what is wrong” since we were children. Philosophy of Mind, on the other hand, deals with topics like the nature of consciousness, while Metaphysics deals with the nature of existence itself. Indeed, compared to understanding a lecture in the Philosophy of Physics, arguing about the ethics of killing in video games might seem something of a walk in the park. This is misleading, not because other areas of philosophy are easy, but because the complexity of ethics is well camouflaged.

2. Respecting Ethics

When you study A-Level Ethics, and you evaluate what is right and wrong, it can be tempting and comforting to spend time simply defending your initial views; few people would come to a debate about vegetarianism, or abortion, without some pre-existing belief. If you are open-minded in your ethical approach then you need not reject everything you currently believe, but you s o 5 o 2 © e 5 £ lal should see these beliefs as starting points, or base camps, from which your enquiry commences.

For example, why do you think that eating animals is OK, or that abortion is wrong? If you think that giving to charity is good, what does “good” mean? For true success, ethics requires intellectual respect. If you might think that a particular position is obviously false, perhaps take this reaction as a red flag, as it may suggest that you have missed some important step of an argument — ask yourself why someone, presumably just as intellectually proficient as yourself, might have once accepted that position.

If you are thinking well as an ethicist, then you are likely to have good reasons for your views, and be prepared to rethink those views where you cannot find such good reasons. In virtue of this, you are providing justification for the beliefs you have. It is the philosopher’s job, whatever beliefs you have, to ask why you hold those beliefs. What reasons might you have for those beliefs?

For example, imagine the reason that you believe it is OK to eat meat is that it tastes nice. As philosophers we can say that this is not a particularly good reason. Presumably it might taste nice to eat your pet cat, or your neighbour, or your dead aunt; but in these cases the “taste justification” seems totally unimportant! The details of this debate are not relevant here (for more on this topic see Chapter 14). The point is that there are good and bad reasons for our beliefs and it is the philosopher’s job to reveal and analyse them.

3. The A-Level Student

Philosophy is more than just fact-learning, or a “history of ideas”. It is different from chemistry, mathematics, languages, theology etc. It is unique. Sure, it is important to learn some facts, and learn what others believed, but a successful A-Level student needs to do more than simply regurgitate information in order to both maneuverer past the exam hurdles and to become a better ethicist.

One aim of this book is to aid you in engaging with a living discipline. Philosophy, and in particular Ethics, is a live and evolving subject. When you study philosophy you are entering a dialogue with those that have gone before you. Learning about what various philosophers think will enable you to become clearer about what you think and add to that evolving dialogue.

You will notice that in this book we have not included “hints and tips boxes”, or statements of biography concerning the scholars. Although these things have their place, we did not want the reader to think that they have learnt philosophy if they know what is in the boxes.

1 For an excellent introduction to good and bad ways of thinking we recommend John Hospers, ‘An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis’.

In reality, university Philosophy departments often work with first year students to lose some of their less academically successful habits. Why? Well, one of the authors has taught ethics at university for many years. Philosophy students often say something like this: “I thought we’d do hard stuff at University! I did Utilitarianism at A-Level, can I have something different to study, please?”

This statement reveals a whole host of things. Most important is the view that to “do” ethics is to remember information. That is why a student can say they have “done Utilitarianism”. They have learnt some key facts and arguments. But philosophy is not like this. In order to understand philosophy you need to be authentic with yourself and to ask what you think, using this as a guide to critically analyse the ideas learned and lead yourself to your own justifiable conclusion. Philosophy is a living and dynamic subject that we cannot reduce to a few key facts, or a simplistic noting of what other people have said.

Some people distinguish between “ethics” and “morality”. We do not. For us, nothing hangs on the difference between them. In this book you will see us switching between the terms, so do not get hung up on this distinction.

4. Doing Ethics Well: Legality versus Morality

Moral questions are distinct from legal questions, although, of course, moral issues might have some implications for the law. That child labour is morally unacceptable might mean that we have a law against it. But it is unhelpful to answer whether something is morally right or wrong by looking to the laws of the land. It is quite easy to see why. Imagine a country which has a set of actions which are legally acceptable, but morally unacceptable or vice versa — the wellused example of Nazi Germany brings to mind this distinction. Therefore, in discussions about ethics do be wary of talking about legal issues. Much more often than not, such points will be irrelevant.

5. Doing Ethics Well: Prudential Reasons versus Moral Reasons

Something to keep separate are moral reasons and prudential reasons. Prudential reasons relate to our personal reasons for doing things.

Consider some examples. When defending slavery, people used to cite the fact that it supported the economy as a reason to keep it. It is true, of course, that this is a reason; it is a prudential reason, particularly for those who benefited from slavery such as traders or plantation owners. Yet, such a reason does not help us with the moral question of slavery. We would say “OK, but so what if it helps the economy! Is it right or wrong?”

S © =) o iz] © o 5 S p= s o 5 o E © e E £ lal

6. Doing Ethics Well: Prescriptive versus Descriptive Claims

Another important distinction is between descriptive and prescriptive claims. This is sometimes referred to as the “is/ought” gap. We return to this in later chapters, especially Chapter 6. But it is such a common mistake made in general ethical chat that we felt the need to underline it.

Consider some examples. Imagine the headline: “Scientists discover a gene explaining why we want to punch people wearing red trousers”. The article includes lots of science showing the genes and the statistical proof. Yet, none of this will tells us whether acting violently towards people wearing red trousers is morally acceptable. The explanation of why people feel and act in certain ways leaves it open as to how people morally ought to act.

Consider a more serious example, relating to the ethics of eating meat. Supporters of meat-eating often point to our incisor teeth. This shows that it is natural for us to eat meat, a fact used as a reason for thinking that it is morally acceptable to do so. But this is a bad argument. Just because we have incisors does not tell us how we morally ought to behave. It might explain why we find it easy to eat meat, and it might even explain why we like eating meat. But this is not relevant to the moral question. Don’t you believe us? Imagine that dentists discover that our teeth are “designed” to eat other humans alive. What does this tell us about whether it is right or wrong to eat humans alive? Nothing.

7. Doing Ethics Well: Thought-Experiments

You will also be aware, especially in reading this book, of the philosophical device known as a “thought experiment”. These are hypothetical, sometimes fanciful, examples that are designed to aid our thinking about an issue.

For example, imagine that you could travel back in time. You are pointing a gun at your grandfather when he was a child. Would it be possible for you to pull the trigger? Or, imagine that there is a tram running down a track. You could stop it, thereby saving five people, by throwing a fat man under the tracks. Is this the morally right thing to do?

The details here are unimportant. What is important, is that it is inadequate to respond: “yes, but that could never happen!” Thought experiments are devices to help us to think about certain issues. Whether they are possible in real life does not stop us doing that thinking. Indeed, it is not just philosophy that uses thought experiments. When Einstein asked what would happen if he looked at his watch near a black hole, this was a thought experiment. In fact, most other subjects use thought experiments. It is just that philosophy uses them more frequently, and they are often a bit more bizarre.

8. Doing Ethics Well: Understanding Disagreement

Finally, we want to draw your attention to a common bad argument as we want you to be aware of the mistake it leads to. Imagine that a group of friends are arguing about which country has won the most Olympic gold medals. Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general ignorance and disagreement; but does this mean that there is not an answer to the question of “which country has won the most Olympic gold medals?” No! We cannot move from the fact that people disagree to the conclusion that there is no answer. Now consider a parallel argument that we hear far too often.

Imagine that you and your friends are discussing whether euthanasia is morally acceptable. Some say yes, the others say no. Each of you cite how different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact — that there is disagreement — mean that there is no answer to the question of whether euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, the answer is no. That answer did not follow in the Olympic case, and it does not follow in the moral one either. So just because different cultures have different moral views, this does not show, by itself, that there is no moral truth and no answer to the question.

If you are interested in the idea that there is a lack of moral truth in ethics, then Moral Error Theorists defend exactly this position in the chapter on Metaethics.

You will not be assessed, by either AQA or OCR, on the core content of this chapter. If any of the content is specifically relevant to assessment, it is discussed in proper detail in the following chapters.

Still, we hope that we have signposted some errors to avoid when it comes to thinking about ethics, and some strategies to consider instead. It may be worth occasionally revisiting the ideas discussed here during your studies, to test your own lines of argument and evaluate how “thinking well” is progressing for you. This would not be a weakness! Both the authors, and any honest philosopher, can reassure you — philosophy is hard! We hope you find this textbook useful and rewarding in helping you on your own journey through Ethics.

g o a o iz] © o 5 5 p=

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

How would you explain what philosophy is to someone?

Do you think philosophy is important? If yes, why? If no, why?

1 2 3. List some ethical questions. 4

Can you figure out if your questions are Normative, Applied, or Metaethical?

5. Is there a link be between Applied, Normative and Metaethics? Which type of ethics do you think it would be best to study first, and which last?

What is the difference between prudential and moral reasons?

What is meant by the “is/ought” gap? Why is it important to remember when discussing ethical questions?

What role, if any, does science have in ethical arguments? 9. What are thought experiments? Why might they be useful to philosophers?

10. “Because there are so many different views on moral issues there cannot be any moral truth”. What do you think of this line of argument?

Hospers, John, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, 4th ed. (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714454

PART I NORMATIVE ETHICS a animals Pn always Hedonic s question Calculus “experience : TE [4 situation quality pratus g arlanism b 1) a according io des = ž :] .. many $5 H Ge i 3 ALB Net 7 utilitarian «mus 2 : bp" iem v Lgo PSO caleultion d H v preference exam le Mill's -28 ‘ZOO od at amount ra g , poise a megs za eines 9] = 5s H Li d Bent aM iy. Mill life H?

s may " hosed > edert also action wr -— g axi Tu. easton utilitarian

CHAPTER 1 Utilitarianism

Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. It forces people who like something a bit mainstream, a bit of pop like Girls Aloud or Take That! or ABBA to say “It’s my guilty pleasure!” I hate that phrase. It is an insult to top quality pop. It is also an insult to guilt.

1. Utilitarianism: An Introduction

Some things appear to be straightforwardly good for people. Winning the lottery, marrying your true love or securing a desired set of qualifications all seem to be examples of events that improve a person’s life. As a normative ethical theory, Utilitarianism suggests that we can decide what is morally right or morally wrong by weighing up which of our future possible actions promotes such goodness in our lives and the lives of people more generally.

2. Hedonism

Hedonism is a theory of well-being — a theory of how well a life is going for the person living that life. What separates Hedonism from other theories of well-being is that the hedonist believes that what defines a successful life is directly related to the amount of pleasure in that life; no other factors are relevant at all. Therefore, the more pleasure that a person experiences in their life then the better their life goes, and vice versa. Whereas other theories might focus on fulfilling desires people have, or an objective list of things such as friendship and health.

The roots of Hedonism can be traced back at least as far as Epicurus (341—270 BC) and Ancient Greece. Epicurus held the hedonistic view that the primary intrinsic good for a person is pleasure; meaning that pleasure is always good for a person in and of itself, irrespective of the cause or context of the pleasure. According to this theory pleasure is always intrinsically good for a person and less pleasure is always intrinsically bad.

Hedonism is a relatively simple theory of what makes your life better. If you feel that your life would be better if you won the lottery, married your true un z m E [2 jes] - E = m e) Z love or achieved your desired qualifications, then the hedonistic explanation of these judgments is that these things are good for you only if they provide you with pleasure. Many pleasures may be physical, but Fred Feldman (1941-) is a defender of a theory known as Attitudinal Hedonism. According to this theory, psychological pleasures can themselves count as intrinsically good for a person. So, while reading a book would not seem to produce pleasure in a physical way, a hedonist may value the psychological pleasure associated with that act of reading and thus accept that it can improve a person’s well-being. This understanding of hedonistic pleasure may help to explain why, for example, one person can gain so much pleasure from a Lady Gaga album while another gains nothing at all; the psychological responses to the music differ.

3. Nozick’s Experience Machine

One important problem for Hedonism is that our well-being seems to be affected by more than just the total pleasure in our lives. It may be the case that you enjoy gaining a new qualification, but there seems to be more to the value of this event than merely the pleasure produced. Many people agree that success in gaining a meaningful qualification improves your life even if no pleasure is obtained from it. Certainly, many believe that the relationship between what improves your life and what gives pleasure is not directly proportional, as the hedonist would claim.

Robert Nozick (1938-2002) attacked the hedonistic idea that pleasure is the only good by testing our intuitions via a now famous thought-experiment. Nozick asks:

Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, pre-programming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening [...] would you plug in?!

Nozick's challenge to Hedonism is based on the thought that most people who consider this possible situation would opt not to plug in. Indeed, if you ask yourself if you would actually choose to leave behind your real friends, family and life in favour of a pre-programmed existence you also might conclude that plugging into the experience machine would not be desirable. However, if Hedonism is correct and our well-being is determined entirely by the amount of pleasure that we experience, then Nozick wonders “what else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?"? The experience

1 R. Nozick, ‘The Experience Machine’, p. 292. 2 lbid.

machine guarantees us pleasure yet we find it unappealing compared to a real life where pleasure is far from assured. This may suggest that our well-being is determined by other factors in addition to how much pleasure we secure, perhaps knowledge or friendships.

The hedonists need not give way entirely on this point, of course, as they may feel that the experience machine is desirable just because it guarantees experiences of pleasure. Or, you might believe that our suspicions about the machine are misplaced. After all, once inside the machine we would not suspect that things were not real. You may feel that the hedonist could bite-thebullet (accept the apparently awkward conclusion as a non-fatal implication of the theory) and say that any reticence to enter the machine is irrational. Perhaps the lives of those choosing to be plugged in to the machine would go extraordinary well!