Has Ayer Shown That the Causal Determinism Is Compatible with Free Will - Essay Example

This paper aims at explicating Ayer’s compatibilist argument and opinion clauses regarding the same argument.  

Ayer’s compatibilist explication

Ayer, from her point of view, depicts that all human actions substantiate due to causal laws or they are not. Accordingly, if the causal laws govern these actions, then they are necessary or paramount. Alternatively, if causal laws do not govern these actions, they occur by chance (Ayer 255). Resultantly, one is not acting from a free perception. He depicts free will, and determinism is perfectly compatible.

For instance, there are situations where one seems compelled to do something. According to Ayer, one can choose to act or not act out of the free will. That is; one can choose to do one thing or otherwise. The position Ayer is that one acts with or without compulsion despite the truth of determinism (Ayer 275). Most of the philosophers such as Campbell try to show that compelled activities do not articulate any article of free will. However, Ayer tries to argue against that view. He insists that one can choose to do something else different from what he or she gets forced to do. The force is external, but the decision made is internal and cannot get changed. This is only different if free will expresses a different perception to act according to the force used or demands made.

Criticism of Ayers compatibilist opinion

First, Ayer stipulates that when one is under a constraint, he or she does not act freely. However, the choice gets made. Such an individual may make a decision because of the constraint (Ayer 274). However, Ayer does not fully believe that a specific decision can get dictated despite the constraint. One has the option of making an alternative decision despite the decision made.

Ideally, this position may not hold if real implications get accounted for. Let’s take an example where a political confidant is forced to air secrets of a political party at gunpoint. The reality is that one perceives that the only option left is telling the truth or getting killed. Ayer holds that being compelled to talk out the secrets does not mean that one should tell the truth (Ayer 22). He or she has the jurisdiction of telling the truth or lying. Accordingly, the art of free will is predominant in this case. Ayer argues that one ought to put his or her mind together in dealing with such a situation.

However, the reality implies that some chemical reactions trigger one’s absolute cooperation with the gunmen. The fact of nature determines the fact that one tells the truth and nothing but the truth. The current events at the time of confrontation leave the victimless of sound mind. Accordingly, Ayer’s idea of making free will and determinism compatible is a semantics trick. The reality of nature is that the past and the current events may lead to possible future outcomes. However, under such circumstances, one may not relate free will and determinism.