In this paper, I argue that Ayer’s reasoning of compatibilism is false. The reason this is true is because his explanation and reasonings of the topic are completely contradictory. Throughout the essay, I will call into question what Ayer believes to be true, while at the same time, try to “take a walk in his shoes,” to see where he is coming from and to dig deeper into why Ayer believes his theories on the topic are correct.
Ayer holds the belief that free will and determinism can both be true at the same time. He states his belief of free will as when, “it is implied that I could have acted otherwise,” and believed that I could have acted otherwise, then i am said to be morally responsible for what i have done (Ayer). He continues by saying …show more content…
He would state that while determinism does imply that you have little to no control over your life, this does not automatically you have no free will. His version of determinism is that your life is not necessarily predetermined but heavily guided by your environment and genes. While these two theories are non compatible, his version of determinism has a place for free will. Ayer believes that with his version of compatibilism that one can have little control over their life and still be held morally accountable, as long as one's action play into their “character” …show more content…
With the theory of determinism being that one's life is solely guided by their environment and their hereditary characteristics, and free will being the philosophy that us, as humans, are free to bend our will as we please and are the sole arbiters of our choices and actions throughout our life. Ayers attempt to combine these two into a singular theory, compatibilism, is meek, to say the least. The purpose of these two philosophies are to create some sense of what it is to be a human and how we live the lives that we do, and how you can attempt to combine these two into an all encompassing term is beyond me. Ayer’s attempt is deserving of admiration as he tried to advance the philosophical way of thinking in the mid 20th century, however as this essay has made clear, the compatibilist theory just cannot withstand harsh scrutiny and collapses once one simplys defines the terms that make up the basis of his argument. Compatibilism, however as intriguing of a philosophy as it is, is incompatible with basic logic, and cannot seem to reach the necessary standpoints of truth needed to be a renowned
Ayer holds the belief that free will and determinism can both be true at the same time. He states his belief of free will as when, “it is implied that I could have acted otherwise,” and believed that I could have acted otherwise, then i am said to be morally responsible for what i have done (Ayer). He continues by saying …show more content…
He would state that while determinism does imply that you have little to no control over your life, this does not automatically you have no free will. His version of determinism is that your life is not necessarily predetermined but heavily guided by your environment and genes. While these two theories are non compatible, his version of determinism has a place for free will. Ayer believes that with his version of compatibilism that one can have little control over their life and still be held morally accountable, as long as one's action play into their “character” …show more content…
With the theory of determinism being that one's life is solely guided by their environment and their hereditary characteristics, and free will being the philosophy that us, as humans, are free to bend our will as we please and are the sole arbiters of our choices and actions throughout our life. Ayers attempt to combine these two into a singular theory, compatibilism, is meek, to say the least. The purpose of these two philosophies are to create some sense of what it is to be a human and how we live the lives that we do, and how you can attempt to combine these two into an all encompassing term is beyond me. Ayer’s attempt is deserving of admiration as he tried to advance the philosophical way of thinking in the mid 20th century, however as this essay has made clear, the compatibilist theory just cannot withstand harsh scrutiny and collapses once one simplys defines the terms that make up the basis of his argument. Compatibilism, however as intriguing of a philosophy as it is, is incompatible with basic logic, and cannot seem to reach the necessary standpoints of truth needed to be a renowned