**This is from guest blogger, Patrick S.**
Ayer says that when one is constrained, they do not act
freely. When one is in such a situation
that he can only make one choice, Ayer believes that this person is caused to
do the one possible option because of their constraints. While being constrained implies being caused
to do something, Ayer notes that the converse does not always hold true. When one is caused to do something, he is
often caused to do it by judging the expected outcome to be better than an
alternative. Take the following example:
‘A’ is held at gunpoint and asked
to disclose governmental secrets.
‘A’ discloses these secrets, and is
NOT shot.
While we might say that ‘A’ was caused to disclose the
secrets, via threat, it would be wrong, according to Ayer, to say that ‘A’ was
constrained to the point that NOT disclosing the secrets wasn’t an option. It is this type of situation, where one has a
choice and is not constrained, where freedom is present in Ayer’s system.
While Ayer holds the opinion that this sort of freedom is
not at odds with determinism, I disagree.
Determinism is the idea that causal interactions are logically such that
any event in the universe is predetermined by previous events. Those previous events, along with the static
laws of nature, are such that only one outcome is possible.
Let’s return to the previous example. If determinism holds true, then previous
events have combined with the laws of nature to lead ‘A’ to having a gun at
their head with the present threat that either ‘A’ divulge government secrets
or be shot. Additionally, the laws of
nature are such that ‘A’ will make the decision to divulge said secrets. This decision comes not from free will, but
from chemical reactions in the brain that are triggered by the current set of
events, with these reactions manifesting themselves in the form of a conscious
decision.
It seems to me that freedom is absolutely at odds with
determinism, and that Ayer’s attempt to make the two compatible is a trick of
semantics. Perhaps events act alongside
laws of nature to deterministically affect the outcomes of future events. However, perhaps it is also the case that
SOMETIMES events are NOT determined by past events and the laws of nature. Under this situation, it could be the case
that some events are pre-determined while others are not. If a personal decision were to fall under the
latter category, it would be the case that free will applies, and determinism
exists within the universe.
Nevertheless, determinism has not applied directly to the situation at
hand. Unfortunately, I currently see no
reason to believe why some events would be subject to determined outcomes while
others are not, but I am certainly open to suggestions and commentary on the
idea.
2 comments:
I agree with your evaluation of Ayer’s claims. In the example that you provided (involving the individual with a gun to their head) I find it odd when Ayer asserts that the individual under coercion was not constrained. It seems that the series of events, experiences, and other causal factors which lead the coerced individual to act are in place and will dictate some action at the present time (as you’ve described with the person’s brain state). I do agree that Ayer’s attempt to separate cause and constraint seems like a semantic move rather than a statement of metaphysical truth. Is Ayer attempting to suggest that causes are sufficient to bring about some action A, but constraints are the necessary causes that bring about that action A? If so, there should logically always be some necessary cause (and hence, some necessary constraint) on an action. Whether this is intuitive or gels with our conscious experience seems moot. We could have these necessary causes in every action, but obviously not have the conscious awareness of each necessary cause, nor have the time/perception to spell out the chain of necessary events.
I find it odd as well when Ayer suggest that his behavior has been shaped by childhood (through various causes), and yet he does not act under constraint. Ayer suggests that despite a deterministic account of behavior, and despite the fact that the behavior could be subsumed under some natural law, it does not follow that I am acting under constraint. Isn’t he (and aren’t we) acting under these set of causes and constrained by them? It might not seem like it when we are going for an apple or an orange, but it seems like we make decisions based on past experience (among many other sufficient causes).
Thank you for your comments. Personally, I can only see Ayer's argument going one of two ways. In the first, he cannot possibly be referring to the same determinism as me. This system would be one in which determinism is true, but we still have free will. The second is more radical, as it requires some events to be determined and others not. In the second, we have to determine why some events are not. In the first, it doesn't seem to me that we really have achieved determinism at all...yet I do feel as though Ayer gets at something important when he talks about the colloquial idea of freedom. He says that being free does not necessitate an undetermined system, but simply having a choice between at least two options. I think that this type of "freedom" exists-most people certainly BELIEVE that they have choices in life. If people are wrong in believing this, why have we evolved in such a way that our intuitions suggest a freedom of the will?
Post a Comment