Introduction
This paper will take a look at free will. It will bring out the views of two philosophers, Ayer, and Chisholm, and try to discuss the similarities and differences in their views. The paper will also state which of the two authors gave a better view of free will. In the statements, a justification will be drawn.
Incompatibilists claim for that for people to have free will, then they should do otherwise than what they have done. This brings out the PAP (the principle of alternate possibilities. In other words, they define an act of free will if the action is done had another alternative work. Compatibilists purport that everything that human beings do is causally determined. Consequently, they think people to have no free will. Compatibilists expect us to interpret PAP in a hypothetical way: every action done should have an alternative, such that every problem that faces a person has various solutions. Otherwise, people will bear no free will.
Ayer
Ayer, for instance, tells people not to contrast causal determinism with free will. Instead, he says that people should contrast freedom with constraint or physical force. According to Ayer, free will goes hand in hand with the causal laws of nature. He claims that freedom is incoherent with someone being forced to carry out a task or his/her actions being constrained physically. He gives a good example that a person can be free despite the force of gravity, but a person being locked in a cage claims no freedom.
Furthermore, Ayer says that when a person has free will, the person is through to have accountability of his/her deeds. Determinism can be defined as the philosophical perception that human demeanor is totally controlled by causal laws (Ayer 1954, p. 15). In his arguments, Ayer advances that if it is admissible that human deeds are governed by the causal laws, that is the past occurrences and the natural laws and that people cannot have a say on what happened in the past nor change the logical rules, then they have no control over their behaviors. Alternatively, people are not free and cannot be responsible for their deeds.
Ayer states that there are three notions that are jointly incompatible. He says that people have the ability to work freely, determinism is real (the behavior of people is dictated by causal rules) and that being causally determined and behaving freely are incongruent. He further offers two main objections to hard determinism brought forth by Honderich and Holback. Ayer doubts the statement that every human action should have a cause. According to him, a scientist has devised several laws that determine human behavior, but there are many other phenomena that scientist have failed to have a law to govern. Consequently, it implies that he believes that such phenomena obey natural law, but people conceive as if they do not. He uses this scenario to adduce that human action may be following the same path. The problem with the objection is that if people’s actions are not causally determined, then they are not responsible for their actions. In other words, people do not choose their actions, and things happen by chance.
Chisholm
Chisholm, in his Human Freedom and the Self, takes a libertarian view, which is in tandem with incompatibility. Libertarians, owing to their belief in free will recognize that determinism and freedom are incoherent. Determinists follow incompatibility and according to Chisholm, their perception is that each anything involved in an action is brought about by some other event. Because they believe in this sort of causality, they know that all behaviors are consequential and that free will is illusory (Chisholm, 1964).
Chisholm dismisses both indeterminism (act or something close to is not caused by anything) and determinism (all events involved in an act occur due to an external event) since they are compatible with the view that people are responsible for their actions. Chisholm tries to resolve a dilemma that if people believe in pure determinism and indeterminism, then any act can be either be treated as being caused by another or by nothing at all. Chisholm claims that suppose people followed determinism and assume that every event is caused by a previous event, then determinism will conflict with freedom ((Chisholm, 1964)). This is because people will not be responsible for their actions since they were influenced by previous actions. Similarly, it indeterminism was followed, and an act is taken not to be as a result of a previous action, then people will not be responsible for their actions, that is, indeterminism conflict with human responsibility. Therefore, if determinism and indeterminism were real, then there would be no other alternative courses for people’s behaviors and that people would be irresponsible because they would not have done otherwise.
According to Chisholm, human beings are either blameworthy or praiseworthy only if free will exists. He uses a good example of a person who shoots another person. In his claims, he says that although the man, who shot the other, did so in his preference, the man had the volition not to shoot. Since the man had the power not to perform the action, then the event could not have been determined by something outside his power to carry out or not to perform the act. He also gives another example that a man does nothing other than what he had done. He then replaces the not action with the man’s beliefs and desires with the same consequence that the man could have done nothing. But is a person is responsible for his/her desires and beliefs then he is accountable for things that lead him to act? The question that begs for answers is whether a person is responsible for his/her beliefs or desires. Therefore, if an individual is responsible for his r her beliefs, then he could have avoided acquiring the desire or knowledge. However, if we take a deterministic view, it is true that the acquisition of belief might have caused him to get the conviction. Therefore, he is not accountable for his actions since something else led to his actions.
Comparison and Contrast
Chisholm rejects Ayer’s view on free will. Chisholm believes that it is insufficient to think that a person would have done an alternative if he/she had done otherwise. A good example presented by Chisholm is the shooting of President Lincoln by John Booth. According to Ayer, the action would have been free, if John had done otherwise other than what he chose. Chisholm supposes that what Ayer says about free will in the act was insufficient. According to him, the shoot would have been free if John would not have shot Abraham, and if he had the liberty to do so. In other words, if John had no possibility of doing otherwise, then he action can be termed as freedom.
However, there are issues the perception of Chisholm. Some people think that it is not keen to manage what we need and what we decide to do. For instance, when I choose to use a sign to as a means to stop work e.g. a bell, I will not be able to choose not to use the bell because I cannot aid the overwhelming need I have to continue work and violate the rule. Also, some people claim that it is through free will that people force themselves into situations that are difficult to do otherwise. That is, if I am unable to refuse the heed to the bell, then I have trained myself and believed that I have to obey it. Alternatively, I have devised a rule for myself which I cannot choose otherwise, but to obey.
Therefore, the view of Chisholm is that people cannot say that every action is caused by another action (determinism), and people cannot say that the action is something that is caused by something at all (indeterminism). What is clear in his arguments is that if events happen, one of the decisions in the events is caused by something else, but not by other events—which is deemed as an agent. This implies that some events are not created by others. Therefore, people are not limited to saying that something never happened in the case because was caused by the agent.
Chisholm uses the free to will rather than the free will. This is because he thinks that the main thing is whether the person has the free to will and the permission to do the things he/she wills. Also, if the person has the freedom not to will anything he/she wills to act and whether the person has the freedom to will anything that he/she does not will to act.
Analysis
In my view, the two philosophers have valid views on free will. Ayer and Chisholm have several things in common geared towards giving the difference between determinism and indeterminism as well as the need for people to have the free to will and do things. Of the two, the philosopher who captures my thoughts on free will well is Chisholm. Chisholm explains well his views and what catches me the most is how he defines free will and compares his views with that of other philosophers such as Ayer. Ayer claims that free will is the ability to have an alternative to an action. Chisholm argues that in addition to having the alternative, the person should be able to have the capacity to choose the alternative.
Ayer's view is somehow myopic, rather narrow. This is because he just takes on a one-sided view of free will. Notably, he bases his arguments on the possibility of an alternative action but says nothing about the alternative. Chisholm steals the moment by going further to dwell on the choice. Chisholm claims that, in addition to having the possible alternative of an action, the person should have the will to follow the alternative.
References
Ayer, A. J. (1954). Freedom and Necessity. Free will.
Chisholm, R. (1964). Human Freedom and the Self. In Robert Kane (ed.), Free Will. Blackwell
