| Nowadays, we face up to many questions and to | | | | explanation. |
| each of it should be proposed an appropriate answer. | | | | Well, Ayer proposed the most understandable and |
| So, now we try to give the answer on the question | | | | appropriate model for the structure of free choice |
| concerning the possibility of similarities between | | | | which is suitable as for the determinists as well for |
| deterministic causality and constraint causality. And is it | | | | compatibilitists. According to his point of view all |
| possible that causality has the power to influence on | | | | persons have the possibility to do free choices, but |
| our decisions? | | | | should also encourage the social principles and duties |
| The answer could be found in the work by Ayers | | | | established by the law. |
| 'Freedom and Necessity' when he underlines the fact | | | | So, determinists limit the person in his or her actions, |
| that we posses the freedom of decision even in those | | | | because they do not provide the person with free |
| situations when our doings are caused by something. | | | | choice and it causes a lot of misunderstandings from |
| The causation needs the next: one occasion which is | | | | the person's side. For this reason, Ayer proposed the |
| supposed to be the effect would not have happened | | | | most interesting model. Probably, if the determinists can |
| in the case if it had not been for the happening of the | | | | use science in order to prove their point of view it turn |
| occasion which is supposed to be the cause for it. By | | | | to be very easy to agree with them, but now we are |
| Ayer there is always a concomitance, but not | | | | sure to be on the Ayer's side and to have the ability to |
| compulsion between the events. So, Ayer says that | | | | develop our opportunities in free choices and not to be |
| our actions are not determined but only have the | | | | bounded by the social rules and duties. |