Opinions differ on what exactly about living in reality is so much better for us than the additional pleasure of living in the experience machine, but the most common response is that a life that is not lived in reality is pointless or meaningless. Hedonistic Utilitarianism is often considered fairer than Hedonistic Egoism because the happiness of everyone involved (everyone who is affected or likely to be affected) is taken into account and given equal weight. Others have argued that any dimensions of quality can be better explained in terms of dimensions of quantity. The Cyrenaics, founded by Aristippus (c. 435-356 B.C.E. It should be noted that only intensity and duration have intrinsic value for an individual. A collection of essays on different aspects of Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism and the relevant original passages from Mill. Prudential Hedonists need not relinquish the Quantitative aspect of their theory in order to deal with these criticisms, however. Duration refers to how long the pleasure or pain are felt for. Purity refers to the likelihood of the pleasure or pain leading to some of the opposite sensation. He acknowledged the egoistic and hedonistic nature of peoples’ motivation, but argued that the maximization of collective happiness was the correct criterion for moral behavior. For example, Desert-Adjusted Intrinsic Attitudinal Hedonism, which reduces the intrinsic value a pro-attitude has for our well-being based on the quality of deservedness (that is, on the extent to which the particular object deserves a pro-attitude or not). Inwood, B., & Gerson, L. P. A Hedonist would argue, for example, that friendship is not valuable in and of itself, rather it is valuable to the extent that it brings us pleasure. However, there is little commentary or explication of the material, and some of the primary sources are fairly opaque. They considered bodily pleasures better than mental pleasures, presumably because they were more vivid or trustworthy. Mill employed the distinction between higher and lower pleasures in an attempt to avoid the criticism that his hedonism was just another philosophy of swine. Presents empirical evidence that the experience machine thought experiment is heavily affected by a psychological bias. All hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe. Theoretically, an externalist and qualitative version of Attitudinal Hedonism could include the falsity dimension of an instance of pleasure even if the falsity dimension never impacts the consciousness of the person. The same scientists have wondered if the same processes govern all of our liking and wanting, but this question remains unresolved. Mitsis is especially good at showing how Epicurus’ conception of pleasure differs from that of the more modern Utilitarians. Important variations within each of these two main types specify either the actual resulting happiness (after the act) or the predicted resulting happiness (before the act) as the moral criterion. If, however, the disvaluable aspect of the pleasure is never experienced, then all types of Prudential Hedonism struggle to explain why the allegedly disvaluable aspect is irrelevant. “Inferential” hedonism, or I–hedonism, is just traditional hedonism. Hedonistic Egoism is a hedonistic version of egoism, the theory that we should, morally speaking, do whatever is most in our own interests. However, the resulting definition of pleasure bears little resemblance to what we commonly understand pleasure to be and also seems to be ad hoc in its inclusion of the truth dimension but not others. By itself, this definition enables Hedonists to make an argument that is close to perfectly circular. Moore’s heap of filth example has rarely been used to object to Prudential Hedonism since the 1970’s because it is not directly relevant to Prudential Hedonism (it evaluates worlds and not lives).