If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable.

I am not sure if this follows. Consider a basic sketch of compatibalist free will as one's relative degree of self-determination:

A. Initially, following conception, we are not conscious. We are the effects of causes external to us.
B. As we develop, more and more of what effects us lies internal to us, as in "within our bodies." For example, organ development is spurred on by signals that originate in the fetus, not by signals coming from the mother's body. Although obviously the mother's body continues to play an important causal role even in a normal pregnancy.
C. At some point, phenomenal awareness begins and we become aware of our own bodies and our environment.
D. As we develop, we develop faculties for self-control, planning, etc.
E. By the time we are adults we can engage in introspection and try to determine our reasons for acting. Further, we can shape our environment in accordance with our will. We can write post-it notes to remind ourselves to do things, we can sign up for fitness classes with a friend so that social pressure forces us to engage in exercise we would otherwise shrug off, go backpacking so that we are far away from cigarettes so that we can't smoke, etc.

Somewhere in this process of development, at least some of what we do comes to be determined by the thoughts and decisions that enter into our conscious awareness. Obviously, people can be more or less introspective, they can have varying degrees of self-control, and they can do more or less to shape their environment so that it supports courses of action that they prefer.

The free person is a self-organizing system. Self-determination isn't a binary. It's something that emerges over time and builds on itself. Everyone has the capability to be driven by what they think is right action to some degree, such that their thoughts about what is right plays a determining role in their actions.

We can also have what Frankfurt terms "second-order volitions," i.e., desires about what we do or do not want to desire. We can take action on these as well, e.g., someone on a diet eats a salad and drinks broth so that they will not have a strong desire to eat high calorie food because they do not want to have that desire.

Freedom then, would be a sort of state. It is when:
1. We do what we want to do.
2. We want to want to do what we do (second-order volition).
3. We consciously intend to do what we do.
4. We know why we want to do what we do, and we agree that those are good reasons for acting.

Obviously, such freedom is never absolute. A person who acts in a way they otherwise wouldn't due to ignorance fails to meet #4. No one ever knows all the reasons behind why they act a certain way, or all the reasons determining why they want to act the way they want to act. But I'd argue that at least some people manage to have a pretty good idea about these things in at least some instances, and in these instances they are responsible for their actions because it is "who they are" that determines their actions.

The universe being deterministic seems sort of aside the point, although I'd tend to agree with compatibalists that some sort of determinism is actually a prerequisite for freedom. What seems important for culpability and freedom is if a person's acts are determined by their thinking, and if their thinking has been determined by a life that has allowed them to become relatively self-determining, such that an appropriate amount of the proximate causes underlying their actions can be traced back to their own conscious reflection and decisions.

This entails that people can be culpable to some degree. We might also consider that people's own choices can either make them more or less self-determining. Self-control, knowledge, and introspection can all be developed or eroded based on the choices we make. Therefore, we might well find people culpable for not developing these capabilities if it leads to their acting poorly. There is a sort of negligence that comes from having a good environment for developing freedom and choosing not to take advantage of it.

Who is morally culpable? — Truth Seeker

Those who choose and act with free will.

Are there people who don't? How can you tell the difference?

- If we believe that someone or something does not choose or act with free will then we do not hold them morally culpable for those choices or acts. For example, if a lawyer convinces the jury that a defendant was insane at the time of the putative crime, then the defendant will not be held (fully) responsible for their actions. You could look up a case like that if you want to see the manner in which this sort of investigation is carried out.

Concepts like forgiveness depend on the prior assessment of blame and guilt. Who says the person who does harm is ‘damaged’ and in need of ‘repair’? I’m guessing it’s not the person who committed the ‘wrongful’ act. — Joshs

I was suggesting approaches different from the present system of punishments.
Who says? The community says how it regards the responsibility and liability of its members. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error.

. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error. — Vera Mont

We are all ill, damaged, evil and in error as judged by the perspective of those who are unable to relate the justifications of our actions, as seen from our own perspective, to their own perspective and form of life. If we are fortunate , after enduring enough ‘correction’, we can come to realize that our accusers don’t really belong to our own ‘society’ and we may join up with those who do relate to our way of thinking. Welcome to red state and blue state America.

For me morality is a complete human invention (non-realism), so moral guilt has to be assigned, it is never actual — Lionino

:ok:

Thank you for saving me time lol

We are all ill, damaged, evil and in error as judged by the perspective of those who are unable to relate the justifications of our actions, as seen from our own perspective, to their own perspective and form of life. — Joshs

That's right. And this is why the framing of laws and moral strictures should not be left to a short-sighted, invested individual (like a prelate or monarch) who can't see another person's POV. It should be done by a consensus of the community. Nevertheless, many communities are bound by tradition or religion or ethnic bias and don't tolerate any different perspective. If the majority of your fellow citizens consider your actions to be wrong, it doesn't matter what your self-justification is: they won't allow you to act that way.

Welcome to red state and blue state America. — Joshs

That rift was never about morality or justice.

Welcome to red state and blue state America.
— Joshs
That rift was never about morality or justice. — Vera Mont

That rift is about, among other things, differing views of what is moral and just.

That's how it's presented by the vested political interests that have been exploiting the prejudices and fears of the inhabitants. That's never a hard sell!

In "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky he presents evidence which supports the idea that criminals are damaged and in need of repair and the idea that they should be quarantined until they are repaired in order to protect others from them. Normally people with contagious illnesses are quarantined to protect others from catching the illness. People in quarantine are not blamed or called evil but are considered victims who need help. I am convinced by Professor Sapolsky's evidence and arguments.

Who has free will? Aren't all living things prisoners of causality?

"If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true?" Here is the definition of hard determinism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism "Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will, and therefore that free will does not exist." If hard determinism is true, then we don't have free will hence, we are not culpable.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free. — Truth Seeker

Done. What next?

Not done!

↪Leontiskos Who has free will? Aren't all living things prisoners of causality? — Truth Seeker

Free will is the traditional answer to the question you pose in the OP. Something with free will is a self-mover, and that is why culpability attaches to such things. If a bullet rips through your leg we don't put the bullet on the stand and see if it is guilty, because the bullet's movement/act comes from outside itself. Neither do we see if the gun is guilty, or the hand that pulled the trigger. We stop at the person who fired the gun, because they are potentially the principle of their own acts.

There must needs be something voluntary in human acts. In order to make this clear, we must take note that the principle of some acts or movements is within the agent, or that which is moved; whereas the principle of some movements or acts is outside. For when a stone is moved upwards, the principle of this movement is outside the stone: whereas when it is moved downwards, the principle of this movement is in the stone. Now of those things that are moved by an intrinsic principle, some move themselves, some not. — Aquinas, ST I-II.6.1

It should be done by a consensus of the community — Vera Mont

I think this is a bit of red herring for Moralists.
There is never going to be a consensus. There is going to be a majority rule. I cannot see my way to thinking that's the best possible outcome. Particularly if we reject moral objectivity.

That's never a hard sell! — Vera Mont

Why do you think that is? My position (probably close to Joshs') is that they prey on the existing truth of these differences in morality. And, that's in aggregate. Plenty of gay conservatives, along with the homophobes for eg.

Not done! — Truth Seeker

I can't force you to believe me.

If you had done the tasks on the list, I would be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. While I am all-loving, I am definitely not all-knowing and all-powerful.

I understand what you said but the problem is that we are not self-movers. We don't choose to come into existence. We don't choose our genes, the environment that allows our zygote to develop, the nutrients that allow our zygote to multiply and multiply until we are adults and the experiences that shape our values, knowledge and skills. We are not deserving of any praise or blame because our choices are not free from variables not chosen by us.

I understand what you said — Truth Seeker

Do you?

but the problem is that we are not self-movers. We don't choose to come into existence. — Truth Seeker

You are mistaken to claim that, <If we are self-movers, then we choose to come into existence>.

We don't choose our genes — Truth Seeker

You are mistaken to claim that, <If we are self-movers, then we choose our genes>. (etc.)

We are not deserving of any praise or blame because our choices are not free from variables not chosen by us. — Truth Seeker

No philosopher who holds to classical volition has ever held that, in order for us to make free choices, our makeup must be free from all variables not chosen by us. Arguably, choice presupposes forms of natural determination, because choice is a means which must align with natural, causal means. Or in other words, if there were no reliable constraints and causes, then there would be no reliable means to any end, and hence no possibility for choice.

There is never going to be a consensus. There is going to be a majority rule. — AmadeusD

True, of politics and legislation. But societies generally adhere to a single set of basic values, though the members may disagree on detail and there will always be transgressors who have to be dealt with in order that the society may continue to function.

I cannot see my way to thinking that's the best possible outcome. — AmadeusD

I cannot see a viable alternative.

Particularly if we reject moral objectivity. — AmadeusD

How's that supposed to work? How is the 'factual' right and wrong arrived-at? Papal decree? Been tried; didn't prevent crime and punishment.

That's never a hard sell! — Vera Mont
Why do you think that is? — AmadeusD

People love to be ever-so-much more righteous than and punitive toward whatever or whomever they're afraid of, and they can be persuaded to fear pretty much anything. Vaccines, immigrants, spiders, old women, cats - anything.

I have seen no evidence that supports your claim that we are self-movers. I have seen evidence which supports my position that we are not self-movers. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

If you had done the tasks on the list, I would be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. While I am all-loving, I am definitely not all-knowing and all-powerful. — Truth Seeker

You were, but I took the powers away from you shortly after.

If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would have prevented the removal of my omniscience and omnipotence by you or anyone else!

I would have prevented the removal of my omniscience and omnipotence by you or anyone else! — Truth Seeker

Would you? How do you know that after I took your powers away? :smirk:

- I have seen no evidence that supports your claim that we are not self-movers. I have seen evidence which supports my position that we are self-movers. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

You have provided no evidence for your claims. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence. If you are truly all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful why did you fail to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths?

I did, I do, and I will. You simply do not grasp that I have prevented all suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths because of your limited, non-all-knowing mind.