In his essay, “Freedom and Necessity”, A.J. Ayer speaks of his objections to the idea of determinism. The problem is not in determinism itself, but in the intersection of free will and determinism. Determinism is the belief that humans do not act on their own free will, rather they are influenced by other factors that predetermine their actions. In this paper I will elaborate on Ayer’s questioning of determinism and how compatibilism offers a great solution for his dilemma. I will be using Ayer’s examples to explain how ones free will is affected by the boundaries of constraint and cause, and the difference between the two. Ayer’s solution is rooted in compatibilism, compatibilism being the idea that free will is compatible with determinism. In this essay I will also be defending Ayer’s argument by building upon his solution of compatibilism, and redefining choice, under free will. I do this is to eliminate some existing objections as well as providing a more accurate assessment of moral responsibility.
Ayer begins his argument by breaking down determinism and the deterministic view. But before that he addresses the issue of free will. Ayer states, “that men are capable of acting freely, in the sense that is required
…show more content…
This objection is rooted in the belief that all causes equally necessitate. Ayer counters this argument by stating, “it is not when my actions [have] any cause at all, but only when it has a special sort of cause, that it is reckoned not to be free” (Ayer, 2011, 562). In this counterargument, Ayer, is referring to the three situations in which a person lacks free will. The kleptomaniac suffering from psychological compulsion falls into this category, as he does not have the ability to decide, rather he will just act impulsively in the