Determinism Vs Compatibilism
Ayer argues that individuals do possess free will and individuals that make decisions voluntarily should be held responsible for their actions which goes against the theory of determinism and compatibilism. Determinism holds that individuals do not possess free will given that their actions are predetermined which prevents individuals to avoid any actions, therefore making them not morally responsible. On the other hand, compatibilism holds that both determinism and the concept of free will are both compatible and one can be a determinist and also believe in individuals possessing free will. However, Ayer argues that the fact that both of these theories state that individuals have the ability to act otherwise, that in itself demonstrates that
individuals are morally responsible for their actions. If one has the ability to act otherwise, Ayer argues then that individual is morally responsible for their actions even if that individual's motives were caused by factors beyond one’s control. In other words, for an individual to be morally responsible, Ayer doesn’t believe that there has to be a contra-causal cause; they are morally responsible if the behaviour is performed voluntarily. As a result, the only situation in which the individual would not be morally responsible is if the individual were to be constrained to do something, which prevents the individual from choosing to act otherwise. To support his point, he gives an example of how a common thief would be morally responsible for his actions, whereas a kleptomaniac would not be. This is because in the case of the former, the individual is exercising his free will, whereas in the latter, the individual is constrained from choosing otherwise. Thus, due to the common thief’s behaviour being voluntarily, the individual is morally responsible, whereas in the case of the kleptomaniac, since his action is not voluntarily due to being constrained, the kleptomaniac would not be held morally responsible. Considering this example, I completely agree with Ayer in regards to the idea that individuals should be held morally responsible at all times for actions they have committed in certain situations they could have acted otherwise. However, a Kleptomaniac is unable to refrain from the urge for stealing items, even if the item has little to no significant value. In this case, individuals with this disorder steal for the adrenaline rush they get from taking such risk. Moreover, the key is that these individuals cannot help themselves and are unable to act otherwise because of the euphoric feeling that they get after taking such risks.
individuals are morally responsible for their actions. If one has the ability to act otherwise, Ayer argues then that individual is morally responsible for their actions even if that individual's motives were caused by factors beyond one’s control. In other words, for an individual to be morally responsible, Ayer doesn’t believe that there has to be a contra-causal cause; they are morally responsible if the behaviour is performed voluntarily. As a result, the only situation in which the individual would not be morally responsible is if the individual were to be constrained to do something, which prevents the individual from choosing to act otherwise. To support his point, he gives an example of how a common thief would be morally responsible for his actions, whereas a kleptomaniac would not be. This is because in the case of the former, the individual is exercising his free will, whereas in the latter, the individual is constrained from choosing otherwise. Thus, due to the common thief’s behaviour being voluntarily, the individual is morally responsible, whereas in the case of the kleptomaniac, since his action is not voluntarily due to being constrained, the kleptomaniac would not be held morally responsible. Considering this example, I completely agree with Ayer in regards to the idea that individuals should be held morally responsible at all times for actions they have committed in certain situations they could have acted otherwise. However, a Kleptomaniac is unable to refrain from the urge for stealing items, even if the item has little to no significant value. In this case, individuals with this disorder steal for the adrenaline rush they get from taking such risk. Moreover, the key is that these individuals cannot help themselves and are unable to act otherwise because of the euphoric feeling that they get after taking such risks.