A. J Ayer argues that human actions are so because of already preexisting factors in their lives but non as a consequence of their ain free will. He maps these already bing factors such as feelings and yesteryear experiences which he calls insouciant Torahs as the 1 that makes people to be who they are. He defends his statement of on the footing that determinism and freewill co-exist in relation when a human behaviour is being executed.
His definition of free will is that it is the absence of any restraint and therefore argues that although people normally are compelled to act in a certain mode by these insouciant Torahs. they remain responsible for their actions since they are non constrained to the picks ( Ayer ) . Theodicy How should evil be viewed in the presence on an almighty God who is all good? Could the evil-that which is non good- be from the same God that is all good? How could the all good God ‘create’ if non make so ‘allow’ immorality?
One could oppugn if it is non him who has created evil. so make his animals have the possible to make immoralities? If so. did He make this potency of making immorality in them? If He did why didn’t he create the absolute power in them non to make evil? Peoples are considered to be making evil based on the picks that they make. The statement is based on the presence of free will on human existences. that is one is perfectly free ( without external irresistible impulse ) to move in a certain mode. But Ayer does non see it all in this visible radiation.
He believes that determinism and free will are compatible. To him free will can merely be regarded as free if 1s actions could hold been different and therefore because of the chosen cause of action. one is held responsible for his/her actions. He besides pointed out that the agent could hold been bound to move otherwise if the action incentives were different. But the conditions being as they were for him or her. so the person acted as he/she did. His statement is that if there happens to be any causal determinism. so it is non possible for the action to be driven by free will.
He believes that 1s free will is acknowledged. it remains no longer to be free will since to his position. free will should be in the unconscious. He gives an illustration such as. when one says “I’m moving on free will” . the individual ceases to be moving on free will. He identifies this state of affairs as one which has now already been determined. He views that people’s usage of the term free will is on ordinary sense. He believes that the term freedom needs non to be linked to the significance and term causality but to restraints.
An illustration is when a adult male does take some actions at gun point non because they want but because they have been compelled to make it. ( Ayer ) . Another illustration is that of Kleptomaniac who are non free agents. Unlike a regular stealer would make. their heads do non allow them make up one’s mind to steal. Ayer yet gives another illustration of irresistible impulse neuroticism. He says if in such an case he happens to wake up and walk around the room whether he wants it or non or he has been compelled by person to make so. so he would non be moving freely. But Ayer argues that if he did it on his ain. so it would be free action.
For him he held that when it comes to restraints. some generalisations could be made on human behaviour. ( Hick ) . He holds that enduring as a kid affects 1s behavior as an grownup. But if this behaviour happens to be altered by something that happens in the class of life. so the individual is non moving under restraint. An illustration he gives is a adult male who decides to forever avoid serious relationship because of holding been cheated by a adult female in a old relationship. In this case the adult male is conditioned by fright of being hurt and therefore is non moving on free will.
But the adult male in inquiry would non hold that his determination is non on free will because he believes that the pick he made was non the lone 1. This is Ayer’s definition of free will. that is taking to make something where there were other possibilities of pick even though at that place could hold been a possibility of insouciant Torahs. A clear observation of Ayers statement on determinism and free will is that he has attempted to turn free will into that which is non. It should be noted that free will is non merely defined as deficiency of restraint.
A pick that has been made by the virtual of causal necessity can non be regarded to be more free than the 1 that is made under logical necessity. Out of this erroneous definition of freewill. Ayer could non be held right on his statement of moral duty. Peopless actions are merchandises of legion causal Torahs and are therefore still being compelled to move in certain mode unlike his position of people being held responsible for their actions because they have acted on free will. ( Hick ) . Decision Its common to inquire if God is the writer of wickedness and immorality in our universe.
The position of a God who created moral existences and at the same clip left them to this provisional economic system with the absolute cognition that they will perfectly fall may seam to be one that could warrant theodicy. If the all good God can non make immoralities. so the lone manner that the immorality can be looked at it is that is a predestination of a greater glorious good. The attainment of the perceived good may non be because that God is missing in power to hold it without evil but it could be because the glorious terminal requires sin itself.
If this is the instance so. the statement that God is the writer of wickedness can non keep for this ground that if the immorality does take topographic point because of his permission. it is non because it the terminal of the procedure but instead a portion of a procedure towards the existent ‘end’ -omnipotent and ‘all goodness’- which in short is back to God. God can non therefore be the writer of evil but instead evil can be regarded as the portion of that procedure that is towards all good. If God permits it so. it is non to the denial of Himself. the all good. but an avowal that He is wholly good since everything. even evil leads all back to Him.