preview

Ayer Freedom And Necessity Summary

Decent Essays
Open Document

The argument presented by Ayer, on free-well and moral responsibility, found in "Freedom and Necessity" describes how if something is to be done by one's own free will it is implied that they are able to "have acted otherwise". In which, if you are able to have acted otherwise are we able to be held morally responsible for the actions an individual has committed. Ayer states that " for a man is not thought to be morally responsible for an action that was not in his power to avoid." This claim is the basis for flaws with Ayer's logic on moral responsibility. That because there was a force acting on the individuals free will that had made him take an action that would not have occurred otherwise. This was argued by Dr. Johnson in which states that will is …show more content…

That casual laws are needed to define how an individual makes their action in response to the causes. An argumentized example might demonstrate that human characterization cannot be defined so clear-cut. People have a multitude of "cases" for actions, but this is not to say that a set one decided it and this will also not be the case with every individual. We may find that people without a father figure are more prone to relationship complications later on. It may seem like that is a cause because it is a correlation between individuals but it may not be related. They might have issues because of finances without a father figure to provide or because they do not know how someone is supposing to treat their significant other because of this, both of which can be correlated with other defining factors as well. There are so many reasons behind actions, therefore although an action may be seen to come from a cause, the individual must still be morally responsible because their actions are defined by themselves and not their

Get Access