Blog Coordinator

Knobe's X-Phi Page

X-Phi Grad Programs

« Are There Two Kinds of Experimental Philosophy? | Main | Semantic Intuitions: A Response to Devitt and Ichikawa, Maitra, and Weatherson »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sven Nyholm

Hi Antti,

nice post.

Are you thinking of the experience machine argument as being aimed to produce a general conclusion about what is prudentially good for everyone, independently of their personal attitudes? Or are you understanding it as a test individuals can use to get clear on what their own conception of the good is?

I'm asking because it seems to me that whether or not survey results are relevant to the question of whether to accept hedonism seems to depend on just how universal (if at all) our ideas of the good life are intended to be. If, for example, we take a view on which what's good for an individual, or what makes her life go well for her, chiefly depends on what she herself (perhaps in certain more or less idealized conditions) desires or values, then how most people respond to this type of thought experiment seems rather irrelevant. What is relevant, from each particular agent's point of view, seems then only to be how the person herself responds to the thought experiment.

(What I just said may not be any kind of objection to Felipe's argument/view since Felipe's paper, unless my memory fails me, is not so much about the question of whether hedonism is a good view or not, instead being about what exactly is going on when people are faced with the experience machine thought experiment.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

3QD Prize 2012: Wesley Buckwalter