Ethical hedonism and psychological hedonism are two of the most studied versions of hedonism. These two theories are similar in their foundations (which will soon be discussed) but when defined in terms of values, one is descriptive and the other is normative. I believe that neither ethical nor psychological hedonism are perfect, although each has important strengths that provide the basis for discussion. Furthermore, some arguments and ideas presented by Robert Nozick in his essay “The Experience Machine” prove relevant to the discussion of hedonism, where Nozick concludes by disagreeing with the hedonist's ideas. I will begin by defining the two versions of hedonism presented so far and continue by exploring my personal opinions on the two branches, paying attention to what each says about values ​​and the pursuit of pleasure. To conclude, we will consider Nozick's essay for its value to our discussion. In considering what separates ethical from psychological hedonism, I agree with Nozick that we place more value on rigorous experiences of pleasure, which means that hedonism doesn't offer enough for me to be convinced, even if I'm not I agree with him that an experience machine would go unused. The terminology in question must be defined in order to be adequately criticized. Ethical hedonism is the belief that human beings should be able to pursue pleasure as the highest good. Furthermore, ethical hedonism states that to obtain the most personal pleasure, a person has the right to make his own pleasure a priority. Therefore, every individual should devote all his efforts to ensuring his pleasure and minimizing his pain. There are several ways to extrapolate this definition, including asking what a person's ultimate goal should be. The question... middle of the paper... I also believe, however, that no hedonism is perfect. Like Nozick, I think there are more values ​​than simply experiencing pleasure. Perhaps pleasure is an overall outcome, but not the only thing valuable to people. I disagree with his general conclusion that an experience machine would go unused, although I agree with Nozick that hedonism is not sufficient on its own. Works Cited Epicurus. “Letter to Menoeceus”. Ethics: history, theory and contemporary issues. Eds.Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie. New York: Oxford UP, 200. 178-180. Print.Feinberg, Joel. “Psychological selfishness”. Ethics: history, theory and contemporary issues. Eds.Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 548-555. Print.Frankena, William K. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Print.Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and utopia. New York: Basic, 1974. Print.