Freedom and Necessity

Alfred Ayer (1910-1989)was an English philosopher who played a major role in the logical
Positivist movement. His most influential book was Language. Truth and Logic ( 1936).

1. what conflict give rise to the problem of free will?

2. Why it is unthinkable to hold that some event don’t have a causer?

3. Relationship between one’s character and determinism.
4.Under what circumstances are we not free?
5.Why is the kleptomaniac not free although his or her acts are determined?
6.What are the three conditions under which it is correct to say that I could have
otherwise?
7. What is meant by saying the course of future events is already decided?.
 Q.1 what conflict give rise to the problem of free will?

Alfred Ayer (1910-1989)was an English philosopher who played a major role in

the logical Positivist movement. His most influential book was Language.
Truth and Logic ( 1936).

• Ayer believes both that we are free and yet that our act are necessitated. The
reconciliation of freedom and necessity is compatible. Acco. to him a
person can be both free and determined.
He argues that this view does Justice to a moral agent because all hold that
a person’s character determines one’s choice. A person is free her choice
are brought about and is not free when the choice are restrain by
something or some other person.
Ayer’s key point is that one is free when one goes through a process of
deciding whether or not to do an act.
It is commonly assumed both that men are capable of a) acting freely , in the
sense that is required to make them morally responsible and b) that human
behaviour is entirely governed causal laws. So there arises conflict between
these two assumption that give rise to the philosophical problem of the
freedom of the will.
Why it is unthinkable to hold that some event do not have a cause?

According to the determinist’s belief that all human actions are subservient to
casuals to be justified. Indeed it is necessary that every event must have a
cause, then the rule must apply to human behaviour as much as to anything else.

But why should it be supposed that every event must have a cause?
The contrary is not unthinkable. Nor the law of universal causation a necessary
proposition of scientific thought. The scientist may try to discover causal laws,
sometimes he has to content with statistical laws, and sometimes he comes upon
event which, he is not be able to subsume under any law at all.
In the case of these events he assumes that if he knew more he would be able to
discover some laws, whether causal or statistical, which would enable him to
account for them. And this assumption cannot be disproved.
One may carried out his investigation . If he carried it further he would discover the
connection which had hitherto escape him. However it is conceivable that the
events which he is concerned are not systematically connected with any others;
so that the reason he must discover the sort of laws that he requires is simply
that they do not obtain,
 3. Relationship between one’s character and
determinism.
• Human conduct search for explanation.. not fruitless.
• Certain scientific law to make successful prediction to behaviour of different
people. But not detail.
Angry :
Science of psychology still infancy , it is developed not only with more human
action be explained , but explanation will go greater detail.
It is impossibleto show i.e apriori. This will not discourage the scientist who in
the field of human behaviour , but will continue to formulate theories and test
them by the facts. A person is free when his choice is brought about , a
4.Under what circumstances are we not free?

BY RECONCILING freedom with determination , freedom is used in ordinary

sense. Freedom is contrasted with causality. So that a man cannot be said
be acting freely if his action is causally determined. but this assumption is
difficult.
For it is not , causality that freedom is to be contrasted with , but constraint. And
while it is true that being constrained to do an action entails being caused to
do it and converse does not hold. From the fact of one’s action is causally
determined it does not follow that he is constrained to do it; this is
equivalent to saying that it does not necessarily follow that he is not free.
If one is constrained , he do not act freely. An obvious instance of constrained
is that , one is compelled by another person to do what he a wants. In such
case compulsion need not be such as to deprive one of the power of
choice. In case of hypnotized by other person , one cannot go against his
will. He can bring some undesirable situation than the consequences of
action that he wishes me to do.
 Why is the kleptomaniac are not free although his /her act are
determined?

• A kleptomaniac is not a free agent .in respect of his

stealing.
• Because he does not go through any process of deciding
whear or not to steal.
• So whether he resolved to do, he would steal all the
same. And it is that distinguished from ordinary thief.
• There is a essential difference between these two case
in which agent is commonly thought to be free.
• The ordinary thief does not go through a
process of deciding whether or not to
steal.
• A kleptomaniac is not free because there
is no process of deciding.