Ethical hedonism and psychological hedonism are two of the most studied versions of hedonism. These two theories are similar in their foundations (which will be discussed shortly) but when defined in terms of values, one is descriptive and the other normative. Neither ethical hedonism nor psychological hedonism is perfect, in my opinion, although each has important strengths that provide a basis for discussion. Additionally, 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 own personal views of two branches, paying attention to what they each say about values ​​and the pursuit of pleasures. In conclusion, Nozick's essay will be considered for its value for our discussion. Considering what separates ethical and psychological hedonism, I agree with Nozick that we value more than strict pleasure experiences, which means that hedonism does not offer me enough to be persuaded, although I disagree with him that an experiment machine would remain unused. The terminology in question must be defined in order to be properly critiqued. Ethical hedonism is the belief that humans should be able to pursue pleasure as their highest good. More than that, ethical hedonism asserts that to obtain the most personal pleasure, a person has the right to make their pleasure a priority. Thus, each individual must make every effort to ensure their pleasure and minimize their pain. There are multiple ways to extrapolate this definition, including asking what a person's ultimate end should be. The que...... middle of paper...... also believe, however, that no hedonism is perfect. Like Nozick, I think there are more values ​​than simple pleasure. Pleasure may be an overall outcome, but not the only thing valuable to people. I disagree with his general conclusion that an experience machine would remain unused, although I agree with Nozick that hedonism alone is not sufficient. “Letter to Menoeceus.” Ethics: history, theory and contemporary issues. Edited by Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie. New York: Oxford UP, 200. 178-180. Print. Feinberg, Joel. “Psychological egoism”. Ethics: history, theory and contemporary issues. Edited by 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.