Would Theodicy work Essay Example for Free

Would Theodicy work Essay A. J Ayer argues that human actions are so because of already preexisting factors in their lives but not as a result of their own free will. He maps these already existing factors such as feelings and past experiences which he calls casual laws as the one that makes people to be who they are. He defends his argument of on the basis that determinism and freewill co-exist in relation when a human behavior is being executed. His definition of free will is that it is the absence of any constraint and thus argues that although people usually are compelled to behave in a certain manner by these casual laws, they remain responsible for their actions since they are not constrained to the choices (Ayer). Theodicy How should evil be viewed in the presence on an omnipotent God who is all good? Could the evil-that which is not good- be from the same God that is all good? How could the all good God ‘create’ if not create then ‘allow’ evil? One could question if it is not him who has created evil, then do his creatures have the potential to create evil? If so, did He create this potential of creating evil in them? If He did why didn’t he create the absolute power in them not to do evil? People are considered to be doing evil based on the choices that they make. The argument is based on the presence of free will on human beings, that is one is absolutely free (without external compulsion) to act in a certain manner. But Ayer does not see it all in this light. He believes that determinism and free will are compatible. To him free will can only be regarded as free if ones actions could have been different and thus because of the chosen cause of action, one is held responsible for his/her actions. He also pointed out that the agent could have been bound to act otherwise if the action motivators were different. But the conditions being as they were for him or her, then the individual acted as he/she did. His argument is that if there happens to be any causal determinism, then it is not possible for the action to be driven by free will. He believes that ones free will is acknowledged, it remains no longer to be free will since to his view, free will should be in the unconscious. He gives an example such as, when one says â€Å"I’m acting on free will†, the person ceases to be acting on free will. He identifies this situation as one which has now already been determined. He views that people’s use of the term free will is on ordinary sense. He believes that the term freedom needs not to be linked to the meaning and term causality but to constraints. An example is when a man does take some actions at gun point not because they want but because they have been compelled to do it, (Ayer). Another example is that of Kleptomaniac who are not free agents. Unlike a regular thief would do, their minds do not let them decide to steal. Ayer yet gives another example of compulsion neurosis. He says if in such an instance he happens to wake up and walk around the room whether he wants it or not or he has been compelled by someone to do so, then he would not be acting freely. But Ayer argues that if he did it on his own, then it would be free action. For him he held that when it comes to constraints, some generalizations could be made on human behavior, (Hick). He holds that suffering as a child affects ones behavior as an adult. But if this behavior happens to be altered by something that happens in the course of life, then the person is not acting under constraint. An example he gives is a man who decides to forever avoid serious relationship because of having been cheated by a woman in a previous relationship. In this instance the man is conditioned by fear of being hurt and thus is not acting on free will. But the man in question would not agree that his decision is not on free will because he believes that the choice he made was not the only one. This is Ayer’s definition of free will, that is choosing to do something where there were other possibilities of choice even though there could have been a possibility of casual laws. A clear observation of Ayers argument on determinism and free will is that he has attempted to turn free will into that which is not. It should be noted that free will is not simply defined as lack of constraint. A choice that has been made by the virtual of causal necessity cannot be regarded to be more free than the one that is made under logical necessity. Out of this erroneous definition of freewill, Ayer could not be held right on his argument of moral responsibility. Peoples actions are products of numerous causal laws and are thus still being compelled to act in certain manner unlike his view of people being held responsible for their actions because they have acted on free will, (Hick). Conclusion Its common to ask if God is the author of sin and evil in our world. The view of a God who created moral beings and at the same time left them to this probationary economy with the absolute knowledge that they will absolutely fall may seam to be one that could justify theodicy. If the all good God cannot create evil, then the only way that the evil can be looked at it is that is a predestination of a greater glorious good. The attainment of the perceived good may not be because that God is lacking in power to have it without evil but it could be because the glorious end requires sin itself. If this is the case then, the argument that God is the author of sin cannot hold for this reason that if the evil does take place because of his permission, it is not because it the end of the process but rather a part of a process towards the real ‘end’ -omnipotent and ‘all goodness’- which in short is back to God. God cannot thus be the author of evil but rather evil can be regarded as the part of that process that is towards all good. If God permits it then, it is not to the denial of Himself, the all good, but an affirmation that He is all good since everything, even evil leads all back to Him.