A.J Ayer combines the properties of determinism and free will to create a compatibilist view on freedom and necessity. This means that free will and determinism are compatible, so it is possible to believe in both concepts while remaining logically consistent. His view of determinism is that human behavior is controlled and predetermined by causal laws, and human action is determined by antecedent action prior to the event (Ayer 608). There are pre-existing factors called “causal laws”; they incline people to act as they do. This includes past experiences, feelings, and other factors that make people who they are and what they do.Although people are compelled to act as they do by nature, Ayer still says that humans are responsible for their behavior due to the lack of constraints in their choices. If there are constraints, then there is a lack of free will and subsequently, nobody is held morally responsible for their actions (Ayer 609). According to Ayer, humans have free will despite their behavior being predetermined because although human behavior can be predicted using scientific law, specific human action is very rarely able to be perfectly predicted (Ayer 607). An example that Ayer uses is that you can predict that a man will be angry given a situation that would normally cause a reasonable person to be angry, however, it is not likely to be able to predict how he will yell or react specifically. Ayer redefines the definition of free will by describing free will as action without constraint, and under compatibilism, involves the ability to make a choice (Ayer 609). If a physical or mental constraint is applied to a person, they lose their ability to make decisions or have any moral responsibility over that specific choice. Ayer uses an example of a person with a gun to their head being told to make decisions based on the gunman’s desires. Regardless if the man chooses in favor of the gunman, his decision making would still be compelled by the actions of the gunman, so the man lacks moral responsibility for either choice he makes because that choice was never really his (Ayer 609). This is all because the basis of action involves personal belief added to personal desire combining to produce the action without applying an unnatural force. Ayer emphasizes that free will requires the ability to choose otherwise, but with constraint this no longer is possible.Ayer says that a human can act freely despite being affected by causal determinism, but they can’t act freely under constraint. What he means by this is that having your actions causally determined does not mean that they’re unable to hold moral responsibility or have free will (Ayer 609). Ayer outlines three conditions necessary for actions to be considered free. The first states that one could act otherwise, the second states that there is apparent voluntary action, and the third is that there is no constraint (Ayer 611). If an event abides by these three conditions, the actions taken should be capable of explanation, which ties free will and Ayer’s views together to create compatibilism.Compatibilism details that humans have the ability to be morally responsible for their actions given appropriate conditions. His argument can be simplified into several conditions. The first condition states that human behavior is either determined wholly by causal laws or it isn’t. The second states that if human behavior is determined by causal laws, then these laws are necessary. The third states that if they’re not necessary then behavior is by chance and humans can’t act freely (Ayer 606).Agreeing with Ayer’s stance on freedom and necessity, I argue that determinism and free will can exist in tandem. A defense of Ayer’s stance on the metaphysics of free will is that people have the ability to justify their actions due to the presence of moral responsibility. This is because humans have the ability to choose otherwise, signaling that humans possess free will to some extent, but this free will of choice is governed by previous causes that led up to that deciding moment. Given Ayer’s argument, people have the free will to create purpose in life with choice and the security of determinism. Ayer makes a good point with his inclusion of constraint being a limitation to free will, making sure that those without control of their actions are not held accountable for their actions. Including the concept of constraints allows for the right people to be held accountable in the right situations as well as providing a defense for moral responsibility. An objection to Ayer’s argument about moral responsibility and free will involves the presence of conflicts associated with psychological causation. Character is a trait in humans that is unable to be controlled, yet has an unknown cause, creating a fog amongst free will and determinism, as determinism relies on law and the ability to trace back causes to the current event. Ayer writes that if actions are not causally determined, then they have to occur by chance. If this is rejected, then the source of free will is unable to be traced back nor explained, which would also rule out the determinist point of his argument; freedom without necessity is unintelligible. Only by changing the definition of freedom can we make free will exist with determinism. Ayer doesn’t weaken this argument in any compelling manner. Necessity and chance being the only two methods to establish free will are unrealistic because it unnaturally forces outcomes. To Ayer, given a different past or a new set of scientific laws, a person would act differently, but this doesn’t prove that a shift in determinism would change the acts classified under free will. Since it is impossible for a person to change the current set of natural laws or causally affect their past there is no other way to act differently, objecting Ayer’s argument that one would act differently. Ayer holds that free will and determinism can exist together with compatibilism. To Ayer, humans are inclined to act as they do under natural laws, however, choice exists so humans can still possess free will. The existence of free will places moral responsibility on humans until a constraint is placed upon their decision making. Although Ayer has a sound argument of moral responsibility and constraint, his argument is flawed when it comes to natural laws affecting the ‘could have chosen otherwise’ argument.