sponsible while their actions are causally determined.The first step in Ayers argument is that we make choices which determine our character. Those choices are either an accident or they are not. If the choices are an accident, then we are not responsible for our actions. We may act out of our own free will, but we do that because of our character which we have no control over. Therefore, even though we are acting out of free will, we cannot be held responsible. The other option is that our choices are not accidents. In this case, there is a causal explanation, and we are led back to determinism. The line of thought which is responsible for this argument, is this: we make our choices based on our character (which we do not determine), and our choices determine our actions.The next argument which Ayer states, is that freedom is not a denial of causality, but of constraint. There are two instances of constraint which take away our freedom, and our responsibility. The first is when we are compelled by another person to do something. An example that Ayer entertains is this: if someone is holding a gun to your head, and orders you to do something or you will die. Ayer states that you do have a choice in this situation. You can do what the gunman tells you, or you can make your own choice to risk getting shot. He claims that a person can only be said to not be morally responsible if there is no reasonable choice to be made. The second instance of constraint is when there is a disorder which controls what we do. A kleptomaniac is an example of someone not making a decision, but having a habit which they are constrained by. All of this leads Ayer to the conclusion that all cases of constraint are cases of causation, but not all cases of causation are cases of constraint. The cases of constraint allowed Ayer to make the statement that we are still responsible when we are caused, but in a non constraining way. Therefore, I suppo...
