Meet Dave, hes an ordinary fellow. Dave always believed stealing was wrong. One day, Dave watches someone drop their wallet. Nobody is looking. Due to _ (blank) he decides to...

Timeline 1: Dave decides to shout "Hey, you dropped your wallet!" Dave knew it was wrong to do, so he stayed true to his values and didnt do it. Although, later he felt a little regret, like maybe he deserved what seemed like a free gift the universe was giving him.

Timeline 2: Dave decides to pick it up, slowly put it in his pocket, and keep it for himself. Dave knows that what hes doing is morally wrong, and he know it causes harm, but instead of caring about the other person, he only cares about himself.

Now, in Timeline 2, does Dave deserve to be shamed for what hes done? Id argue yes, because he knew what he was doing was wrong, and if left unchecked, many people tend to put themselves before others because thats simply what is in their nature.Shaming them is the social scaffolding that prevents and deters this sort of behavior, and also makes things feel more "fair" in the end.

And the Incompatibilists are going to argue "But look at the "_" (blank), thats what matters!"

But why do you think that matters? Regardless of what you put in "_" (blank), Dave knew what he was doing was wrong, and then did it intentionally. It is both fair and efficacious to shame him for that. Is moral "desert" (deservingness) not simply the intersection of fairness and deterrence for any guilty individual?

I mean, do you really think Dave doesnt deserve shame, if it was or wasnt a random event that resulted in that action? Either way, he did what he knew was wrong, and that was ultimately sourced on his poor nature, his selfishness, and lack of moral virtue. Should we not answer to the ends of the proverbial law, and give him the social or legal consquences that we promised to give a thief?

When you told thieves not to steal or thered be consequences, were you lying? Did you not plan to follow through? In order to stop bad things, you neef to threaten bad actors with punishment. And in order to make a meaningful threat or promise of such, you need a real commitment to carry through, EVEN IF its no longer beneficial to do so.

This is exactly the game theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction). If a country openly admitted to being unwilling to use nukes, they forfiet their threat and the security that comes from it. Theats and promises are not meaningful if they are not backwards looking.

People keep telling me im using the word wrong or conflating it with other things.

I thought it just meant "Its good to do something to someone". A necessary good, not a fabled "necessary evil". Its just a necessary good that might require some suffering or consequences.

Do you deserve to feel pain, if you stub your toe?

Im being a good and considerate person by saying yes. Its commonly regarded as a disorder to be unable to feel physical pain. So im caring about you by saying i want you to feel pain if you stub your toe.

That may feel strange to you, if you assume suffering is inherently bad. Its not inherently bad though, thats my point, it exists for a good reason and itd be bad if it stopped existing.

You may respond "But thats forward-looking and instrumental though, you only care about the pain so that I dont damage my body". But thats untrue, and i'll show you why.

Imagine a world where you are invincible, unable to damage your body, or feel pain. If you stub your toe, who cares? If you get run over by a car, who cares? The roads could be made out of spikes, you could run across it barefoot, giggling and laughing like a toddler in a universe of silliness. But imagine what weve already constructed here, a reality where intelligence, character, and fortitude are fundamentally premature, and we are essentially children living in a dream.

But, this world description is incomplete! If we were unsuffering immortals, we would have never created roads or cars, because we have no need for jobs, for we have no need to eat. Thered be no buildings, no stores, no "stuff", no clothes, nothing. And life itself required adversity to evolve, so if that doesnt apply to us, then clearly we must be on a lifeless planet, and we must be some kind of androids or some spirit children of a God. So here we are, on a barren planet, or a giant asteroid, running around, unable to feel pain, and unmotivated to really do anything.

But why run around? If sitting around and being bored isnt painful or bothersome, we wouldnt do that, either. Wed just sit around, or stand, for eternity. And congratulations, at this point in the thought experiment, weve reduced a person to be no different than a tree. Is a person even "sentient" if they dont feel any pain or suffering, ever?

A reality without suffering is one without agents ir intelligence. So yes, people deserve to suffer sometimes, it can be good for them! The road to ultimate nonsuffering is the road to ultimate nonexistence.

But desert, isnt just any suffering, its the proper allocation of suffering. Its reciprocal, thats why its called "deserving".

We would be messed up human beings if we lived without social and criminal consequences, and fear of punishment. Just introspect on yourself. If you could get away with murder, r*pe, assault, theft, etc... and there was no chance anyone tried to stop you, no consequences, and no shame, why wouldnt you? Like, if there was absolutely zero shame, how would you even understand its wrong? Then, once you do learn its wrong (maybe it happens back to you), youd find yourself to be a maldeveloped wreck of a person, traumatized, unable to fit into society, with tons of problems. Shame and fear are the merciful arms of those around you trying to help you learn and grow to be the best possible agent you can be.

Agents need structure, both pleasure and pain, its what makes us great. Without it, we are nothing. Desert is the great arbitrator and emancipator that helps us be the best versions of ourselves.

Heres what i know to be true: People demonstrate, time and time again, given any description of a situation (which is by nature, lossy) multiple possible options and outcomes are demonstrably available and contingent on the act of decision itself.

Like for example, my parents were religious government supporters, i am neither. They are also, to my understanding, implicit LFW believers, which i am not. I had the capability to form my own beliefs, and all the preconditioning, genetics, et cetera, was categorically unable to prevent that.

Sure, determinism might exist, which might means that given a gods eye view, my actions should be seen as inevitable and unsurprising, equally preconditioned just in a more hidden way.

But so what?

The fact that in approximate situayions, people genuinely can do otherwise, gives us a useful account of agency with the following properties:

1. We should apply effort into the decision as good consequences are contingent on it

2. Our decisions are meaningful because they come from us

3. We should hold ourselves responsible for our actions, to prevent and correct suboptimal behavior in a fast, reactive way

4. We should hold others responsible for their actions and deter bad behavior, if their behavior is bad enough (going overboard just causes more social issues, like the stereotypical spouse that complains about every little thing).

The moment you reject any of these properties, you lose a point of utility. No effort implies poorer decisions, no meaningfulness implies discontent, no responsibility implies no learning and improving ourselves and environments. The Hard Determinism narrative tends to run contrary to these narratives, and argues things that sound like the opposite to a lot of people.

And i just dont see how thats better than a compatibilistic narrative, which is just as coherent and points at real qualities we demonstrably have.

Im about to drop the mic for compatibilism, make a slam-dunk, so to speak.

What separates us from a volcano erupting its lava, or a fox eating a rabbit, is being responsive to morals:

1. Understanding multiple options can be selected if we intend to do so

2. Having the intent to perform one option instead of another

3. Understanding an option is morally wrong, harming another in a way we wouldnt want to be harmed.

Its right there in the name, Moral Responsibility, Its literally being responsive to the weight of reason, including morals.

And thats obviously compatible with determinism. The existence of determinism, or luck, or a bad childhood, or whatever, does not exclude someone from moral responsibility, if they understand what they are doing is wrong, and are literally responsive to moral reasoning.

This is trivially true. Determinism is a red herring.

And this ties back into Moral Desert easily. If someone is Morally Responsible, then they can "Deserve" consequences, in the sense that its logically and morally justifiable to impose consequences on them, categorically, in order to invoke their responsiveness to morals to achieve a Good End, according to that moral system (whether utilitarian or deontological). Itd be weird to believe "Yeah, its good to impose punitive consequences on somebody, but they dont deserve it", like aside from being emotionally passive-aggressive, what does that even mean? You say sorry as you administer the lashings? I think thats just conflating " Desert" with "Hate". Nobody administering consequences needs to be hateful, spiteful, or cold towards the punished.

Anyways, so yeah, its right there in the name, Moral Responsibility is just Responsiveness to Morals. Thats compatibilism, verified. ✅

If im determined, then im not free from being determined, yes.

Why in the absolute fuck do you care about that?

I can think of a lot of freedoms that are useful. Being free from slavery, being free from obligations, being free from worries, being free from emotions, being free from external control....

But, being free from caused? Who.. cares....? What does that change? How does that help you?

Who cares if youre a machine made of magic, or magic made of machine? Its the same outputs either way.

Libertarians assume "free will" requires not being caused or determined.

Event Causal Libertarians assume randomness is freedom.

Hard Determinists assume the same as one of the above.

Hard Incompatibilists assume Free Will can be neither determined nor not-determined (lol)

Bur compatibilists? We are just like "Hey guys, why are you making all these weird assumptions? Does the idea of being caused or determined bother you in some substantial way? No? Can you show me how you think its linked to Moral Desert or some other important idea without assuming the conclusion? No? Then this leaves us with only one conclusion, determinism must not matter. Debate over."

Lets simplify things. Lets say the only way to deal with evil is to throw them in prison. No self defense or anything else... And lets say this only applies to violent criminals like first degree murderers.

And lets say we have exactly 2 options, A) Sending criminals to a horrible awful prison where they are basically tortured, and B) Sending prisoners to a good luxurious prison where they have a Good Time and lots of Fun.

I see a lot of anti- moral desert people defending things like B over A. But thats literally just letting people get away with murder, AND THEN giving them free housing!

In this economy, giving someone a luxurious prison experience is 110% incentivizing them to commit crime. If we want to scare people away from crime, then they need to believe they will suffer as a result of their crime.

Obviously.

Now this was just a simplified situation. Prison, government itself, doesnt have to be the solution at all. But obviously, free housing isnt a way of deterring crime. Torture, pain, and death is.

And id say, 95% of the time, the reason people dont commit crime, isnt even being scared of legal consequences, its the fact that the victim can defend themselves. A burglar in America isnt thinking about how to escape the cops, they are thinking about whether or not the home owner is armed and whether or not they will even walk away from the robbery attempt; And THAT is why most of them never even try. And the ones that do, prepare for THAT, by showing up armed, rather than having fake ids and an alibi or whatnot.

Death is the first line of defense against murderers and psychopaths, as its the consequence of self defense. And its hugely helpful in deterring crime. Any punishment thereafter, only makes sense if its likewise in kind.

And im not saying detterence is some ultimate goal or that its justified *because of* consequences, but you dont exactly have a society if people can run around, murder, and get away with it

If its wrong to punish, then its wrong to punish the punisher, therefore opponents of punishment are unwilling to physically do anything to the punisher except to physically accept their behavior, therefore punishment must be acceptable.

This is an argument, that at its core, punishment is amoral (or permissible). BUT, backwards-facing moral desert requires that punishment is moral (or good to do), so I have one more gap to cross over.

And heres that final step: Punishment itself, can be beneficial to the punisher or victims seeking justice, and others as well.

And an Amoral Act + Positive Personal Value => Moral, Positive Value.

Most people wouldnt disagree with that equation. Eating is amoral to others, but being healthy is good for you, therefore eating healthy is morally good.

Likewise, enacting punishment is amoral to the recipient, but its good for you and victims, therefore its morally good.

Its that simple. We want to stop evil, its good for us to do so, we know its not immoral, therefore its good.

Denying backwards facing moral desert is like saying its not good to put a house fire out, because the fire didnt do anything wrong. No, scrxw the fire, it doesnt matter more than us, its good for us to put it out, therefore its good.

Thats because backwards facing moral desert, already fixes all problems with social organization and criminal punishment.

Edit: No im not calling anyone personally naive, im arguing the position is naive.

The naive skeptic says "theres no point in trying because youre predetermined". The wise skeptic says, "you should try anyways, because its useful, and useful things can be determined".

The naive skeptic says "Nobody should ever be shamed for anything because its not their fault.", the wise skeptic says "Shaming is a useful social tool and we should utilize it."

The naive skeptic says "Murderers should be rehabilitated and released back into society", the wise skeptic says "Thats just allowing people to get away with murder. Murderers need to be properly punished, for forward-looking reasons".

The naive skeptic says "Nobody deserves anything and all response collapses into utilitarianism", the wise skeptic says "No, we need to know whose guilty of crime in order to properly protect the innocent, so lets utilize Desert but call it something else, like criminal guilt."

The naive skeptic says "We should try to change people and reform the evil using science", the wise skeptic says "Its scientifically impossible to reliably change people, so we should not rely on it."

The naive skeptic says "Prison is a good way to separate the unsaveable from society, in principle at least", the wise skeptic says "Prison is just prolonged psychological torture, in many cases its better if the violent criminal is dispatched painlessly".

Etc...

Every smart skeptic position just ends up collapsing back down to compatibilism and retributivism, after they think through the logic of each argument theyd naively come up with. Backwards facing treatment of others is always the forwards facing optimal solution, for the simple reason, that a fire doesnt care if you blame it for burning your house, anything short of completely eliminating it by force is insufficient to address the problem. The rampant violent criminal rampages of violent criminals cannot be sequestered, except by force, and even if you could youre left with a trauma-ridden, dysfunctional, broken individual just waiting to malfunction again. You cant replace all that trauma with happy memories and a clear conscience if it doesnt exist.

Mercy and Empathy doesnt always smile, but it never fails to weep.

The NAP is not about morality, its about rights. Smoking or selling cigarretes could be "wrong", but if nobody has a right to do anything about it, then you have a right to smoke/sell them.

And notice theres two interpretations of the NAP, a retributivist one, and a non-retributivist one. The retributivist account justifies self defense (as prevention) and punishment, while the other is self defense only.

Presumably, abortions cannot be meaningfully prevented, you arent there when it happens, and theres no good way to prevent it. So this is about punishment, right?

So if youre going around saying women dont have a right to have abortions, it seems to me that youre saying they should be punished for having them.

Walk me through that.

You break into the home of a women who had an abortion, and assassinate her?

Great, so your pro-life philosophy justifies rampant vigilantism, home invasion, and burglarly.

Mine does not.

I repeat, my anarchism doesnt require vigilante death squads like yours does. How, you ask? Self defense is already sufficient. >99% of murderers can be killed in the act in a broadened sense of self defense (broadened, as in, you dont have to accept their surrender), and the <1% that has a hostage, the sensible approach is wait for the hostage to flee and then protect them. Yes, you can even protect abused kids that way, just wait for them to leave and ask for help. Once this is nornalized and common, hostages will be empowered to run away. They oftentimes dont, because they know governmemt police will bring them right on back.

Theres just no room for punishing an abortion. Itd require putting yourself above the rights of a home owner (which may or may not be the woman, btw!), engaging in risky combat, and normalizing home invasion. The guys breaking into someones home, is NEVER the good guys. Period. I mean, just think about the bystanders... if they see you, an armed masked thug, breaking into their neighbors home, you think they will think youre the good guy? Nope, they will shoot first and ask questions later.

If you support going door to door and killing or kidnapping home owners, youre just a statist. Youre recreating the exact evils and right violations of a government and its police force.

The only anarchist position is being in pro-choice. You cant articulate a coherent way of doing something about abortion without recreating a small government just to deal with it.

Im going to use broad societal opinion as sort of an intuition lever, here We can disagree all day long, but lets at least agree on whay people obviously think. And they think: compatibilism.

If people thought being a victim of circumstance resulted in no moral responsibility, then child predators would be let off the hook when we discover they were molested as kids, murderers would get off the hook for low IQ, and rapists would get off the hook for lacking parents or whatever. Theres be tons of exceptions to punishing crime on the basis of "oh you poor thing, you had it bad too", and yet none of that exists. Why? Because WE DONT CARE, we understand crime exists for reasons, we want it punished regardless. Theres no precedent for determinism lowering moral responsibility in legal systems, and nobody thinks that way!

It also makes no sense. It doesnt suddenly become unpragmatic to punish the criminal just because they were caused, and if its wrong to punish them then its wrong for someone to punish you for punishing them, so either way its net-acceptable to punish them.

Determnism is a huge red herring and wild goose chase.

You know, i used to be one of the guys in my armchair judging things i didnt understand.

Then i became a father with a pregnant partner.

One thing i wasnt even aware that existed? Morning Sickness. My girl in particular almost died from dehydration because she couldnt consume anything, a direct side effect of pregnancy. Zofran was needed, she takes the full dose, and shes still puking three times a day. She has it 9/10ths of the way as bad as it can possibly be, and if it got any worse, shed be dead. Its a medical miracle shes even alive right now.

And youre telling me, shes morally obligated to host a parasite thats nearly causing her to starve to death? Shes morally obligated to suffer intensely and risk not being alive???

Now, we want a kid. We are fighting through the pain. But the thought of not having a way out, being absolutely screwed by biology, just because some fascies and chuds run society and threaten violence on women for having abortions, is terrifying.

Its her body, its her choice, you dont get to force her to starve to death.

And in anarchy, if you (a complete stranger) tries to stop her from taking lifesaving medicine or surgeries, she has the right to defend herself from you, using lethal force.

i bet even most of you would be fine with the idea of kicking a guest out of your house, even if its so cold (or theyre so inept) theyd die. Its your house, you get to evict them at any time. You defend the right to YOUR property. Yet its when a woman wants a right to not only her property but her body, she doesnt get the same right? Thats messed up.

And how would you enforce that in anarchy anyways? vigilante death squads? Gtfo here with that nonsense. Peaceful coexistence works through self defense, not vigilantism.

Why do you care about that? You have no reason.

"I define Free Will as..." Hush, i dont care how you define words. Obviously you care about the concept of doing otherwise in exact circumstances, so tell me why.

Its not useful or practical. And no, you havent established any link between it and Moral Desert, or Morality at all.

I think morality is simple. Only an impartial system can be objective (aka true), because truth requires speaker-independent validity, so right off the bat aggression and moral hierarchies are non-objective, therefore incorrect. Boom. Where in that reasoning was determinism invoked? Nowhere.

Its wrong to do bad things, thats argued directly by many moral propositions, and nowhere that ive ever seen does it come prepackaged with an assumption like "Well, its only wrong if Laplace the Demon cant predict your next move..." Determinism is in no part of any moral system ever, because determinism is unrelated to the moral status of our actions. We forbid initiatory force because it hurts people, and we allow reactionary force because it stops the bad people from hurting people. Its that simple.

All Incompatibilists do is assume their conclusion, like "Well obviously Indeterminism is required for backwards-facing moral desert", because zero logic went into that conclusion, its a feels-based position. They are communicating their emotions to you. That is all.

Whats "Free Will" based upon?

A) The freedom to do that which we will/want the most? Thats compatible with determinism.

B) Moral Desert? All Moral systems are logically compatible with determinism. Utilitarianism and Deontology are the two broad categories of morality; The "Greatest Good" aim of utilitariaianism doesnt change under determinism, and neither does the "logical reciprocity" claim of deontology.

C) Control over our actions? Determinism is *better* for that. A lack of determinism means unreliable control.

D) Actions in which solely come from "us"? Thats compatible with Determinism, and actually is refuted under Indeterminism, because Indeterminism implies random chance controls part of it.

E) The more desirable type of agency? Well, you cant beat 100% reliability of doing the thing you desire the most.

If your argument is "I just define *free* as *undetermined* wahhhh", then youre not doing philosophy, youre doing semantics.

*Defines choice in an unconventional way* "Therefore you dont really make choices".

*Defines freedom in an unconventional way* "Therefore you dont really have freedom".

Nobody has to define "choice" or "freedom" that way. Lets say they refuse to define it that way. Now what? How do get your point across to them?

What even is your point? I dont think there is one. All you guys want is a punchline, something you can say that sounds contrarian and messes with peoples heads. And if you dont get to twist the definition of everyday words, you simply cant do that.

Dear Incompatibilists

The thing we call "choices" are by definition, "choices".

The thing we call "freedom" is by definition, "freedom".

Pointing at "Undetermined" stuff and calling it "freedom" is redefining words. When people talk about Freedom, or Choices, I guarantee you they are not thinking about Laplace the Demon typing away om a cosmic superkeyboard peering into the future to see your actions predetermined.

Ironic, considering incompatibilists CONSTANTLY accuse others of redefining words.

Incompatibilists, why cant you just make "your point" without redefining words?

Dont call it "Free Will", call it "Undetermined Will", and dont call it "Choices", call it "Undetermined Actions". Start with an honest blank slate. Now, whats "your point"? Can you explain why you care about "undetermined stuff" and why its consumed so much of your time and attention?

No, you cant. Because Incompatibilism is a FAKE philosophy built ENTIRELY on word games. "Your point" is just a freakin punch line. "Therefore we dont really make choices". That is "your point"! And its a dumb point! Its just weird semantics, its redefining and re-clarifyifying what OTHERS mean by a word, then pretenting like you made some marvelous discovery. Hows that any different than the kids at "im14AndThisIsDeep" asking us if Ketchup is a soup or whatever the frick the weird obsession with words is that day?

If you cant get your point across without redefining basic everyday words then i dont think you really have a point.

Imagine someome asks their friend "Are you free to go swimming tomorrow?", and their friend replies "Yes, i have the freedom to do that."

What kind of freedom are they talking about here? I actually think two different definitions can fit here:

The Negative Kind: Freedom in this context could simply be the absence of any constraints or limitations thatd prevent it. This is freedom from something.

The Positive Kind: Freedom in this context could also mean an innate ability to conceive of many possible options and then choose between them. In other words the combination of Agency and Creativity. This is freedom of something.

In either case, we clearly have both of those abilities in the above situation. We are creative choicemaking agents, and we are not being forced to decline the offer.

Why skeptics and incompatibilists think we lack freedom is beyond me. We clearly demonstrate these capabilities empirically. The presence of a demonstrated cause to do something doesnt imply an external force or constraint preventing it. Thats like saying "Rain is caused by evaporation, therefore rain is prevented from existing." Thats literally the opposite of whats clearly true.

1. One day you wake up, and your body no longer does the things you want it to anymore. You want to pour a bowl of cereal, but then you reach for plain unseasoned oatmeal instead. You want to tell your wife "i love you", but you tell her to lay off the moonpies instead. Youd be devastated every second of the day if you were no longer free to do that which you will.

2. One day you wake up, and you no longer have a will at all. You cant want to do anything. You dont want to get out of bed. Every task feels like a monumental effort. You stop caring, you stop doing basic things for yourself and others.

3. One day, you wake up, and someone replaced your will. Youre not the same person anymore. You uaed to like videogames and fantasy novels, now you like sports and copous amounts of alcohol. You remember your old self, feel a bit sad and confused that its gone. Then you learm you were brainwashed, forced to be different.

If any of these situations occured, youd be very upset.

Youre free because they dont happen.

Lets say in the dead of the night, an axe wielding psycho burglar breaks down my door.

You, the skeptic, sit 200 yards away with a handy-dandy sniper rifle, trained on me. (This is your opportunity to do something about me). Only my head is exposed enough for a drop shot.

The burglar breaks down my door, and gazes upon me. 8 foot tall, 2000 pounds of steel Power Armor, holding a rotary Minigun. The burglar knows, right then and there, hes fvcked.

The burglar drops his axe: "please! I surrender! Spare me! I have a family, and..."

I aim the minigun.

You, with your sniper rifle, *could* take me out, if you want to. But you think about it, and trading my life for the burglars life is a 1:1 trade and doesnt really accomplish anything. The burglar *might* harm someone else, i clearly wont unless aggressed upon. You hesitate, and miss the shot. (Lmk if youd do otherwise).

*BRRRRRRRRRRR*

The burglar lays dead.

You run over to me: "Hey, you cant do that, he surrendered! He didnt *deserve* that!"

Then i say "Okay, now what are you gonna do about it? You wanna kill me? I will let you."

You pause. "Well... you dont deserve it either, i guess..."

Then i respond: "Okay... so you find my actions were acceptable?"

"Noo! i hate your actions!" you cry.

But i repeat "And yet, you are accepting them, by not stopping me."

"Only technically" you reply.

"No, more than technically. Your position is indistinguishable from mine. I think the burglar deserved it. You think, i dont deserve to be stopped from implementing my belief in their desert. Theres no functional, physical difference between the application of our viewpoints, nor about how youd treat *me*, only what *youd* do differently. And your personal preferences are not actionable statements about morality, they are aesthetic preferences you choose to adhere to."

And there you have it. Whether you believe in moral desert or not, any attempt at a logical, fair, impartial application of morality would lead you to the same conclusions on how to act, as IF you did believe in it. Therefore, its true. The distinction without a difference, collapses entirely.