Soft Determinism Vs Libertarianism

Out of the three philosophers and the three views that we have studied, I believe that Ayer has the most convincing view. His view is a combination between Libertarianism, which supports the idea that we do have free will, and Hard Determinism, which denies the freedom of the will and says that it is only an illusion. In a way, these two ideas are opposites but Ayer holds this view and it is known as Soft Determinism or Compatibilism. This view accepts the argument that we are determined (premise 1 from the argument on page 333) but rejects that determinism implies that we are not free to choose our actions (premise 2 from the argument on page 333). Ayer believes that we can make free will compatible with determinism, hence why it is known

Why do we hold people accountable if their lives are pre-determined? The same problem arises from a libertarian view that since it acts on pure chance and there is no principle of universal causality, then everything must just be an accident so people's actions are unpredictable making them unreliable for their actions so if they were to do something bad they should not be punished or if they do something good they should not be praised because every choice acts on pure chance and

Libertarianism and Hard Determinism both have flaws in the way that its ideas are presented. Hard Determinism is flawed because it gives people no moral responsibility and freedom to choose, making people who do bad things have an excuse in court to be not guilty. Same goes for Libertarianism because it acts on pure chance and rejects the principle of universal causality which means that since people are unpredictable and they act on chance, it is not their fault for doing something wrong or giving them credibility for doing something good. Compatibilism is the best view because in a way we are determined but we have the will to make our own choices because of our internal