Well, for example, I just teleported exactly behind you.

Ok, please describe my room and what I look like.

I didn't pay attention, and nothing about it really stood out.

An all-knowing being would be able to describe my room and what I look like even without teleporting into my room. Your lies are not even plausible.

An all-knowing being would be able to describe my room and what I look like even without teleporting into my room. Your lies are not even plausible. — Truth Seeker

What I know and what I wish to remember are different things. You said all-knowing, not all-remembering.

An all-knowing being by definition knows everything which includes what my room and I look like. This is getting boring.

which includes what my room and I look like — Truth Seeker

And I know that.

On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone — 180 Proof

And some are determined to accept it while some are determined to not accept it.

I agree.

No doubt.

If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability. — Truth Seeker

Incorrect. I think @180 Proof has already touched on this. If determinism is true, we are destined to have an agency such that we are determined to
consider the moral obligation of our actions. If you are a moral agent, then you are capable of moral deliberation, therefore you are morally culpable.

There is a theory on punishment that argues that the denial of punishment to a person denies that person a moral agency, (moral agency to be the ultimate measure of what it is to be human).

The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

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.

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: — Truth Seeker

Isn't free will only valid when you had choice? Most things you have listed as you have done, but don't want to do them seem nothing to do with freewill.

For example, did you have option not to be born?

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will — Truth Seeker

I have done all those.

Please prove your claim with evidence.

I don't know. I have met people who believe we are immortal souls and choose to be born and choose all the experiences we will have during our lives in this universe before we are born. They were not able to prove what they believe but that does not mean they are necessarily wrong. I am an agnostic about the existence of souls and gods but I am open to new evidence for souls and gods.

It sounds like the first priority is to define what freewill is. Then you could proceed for further clarifications and discussions.

Who is morally culpable? — Truth Seeker

(The emphasis is mine.)
Why, in what sense can one by culpable other than morally?
Then, culpable of what?
Finally, how is this question connected to your multichoice list? It implies that one or more beings in the list is (actually) culpable. But neither a reason for being culpable is given nor any one in the list seems to be culpable for any reason, e.g. like a "criminal" would clearly be.

Now, since all the sound like criticism --although they aren't; they are just logical questions-- I tried to find what could be a question that fits your list ... The best I could find off hand is the following "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?"

If you like it, you can edit your OP and use it. (I don't ask for credit. :smile:)

I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything.

One can be legally culpable without being morally culpable. I think that no one is morally culpable but all adults of sound minds are legally culpable.

Culpable for doing something morally incorrect. For example, I became a vegan eighteen years ago because two vegans convinced me that it is morally wrong to be an omnivorous or carnivorous human.

In my list, I have included beings I have never met and am not convinced exist, e.g. gods, angels, demons and the devil. I have also included beings such as robots and AI even though I am not convinced that the currently existing robots and AI are sentient. I chose the "No one" option from my list. I could be wrong but that is what I currently think. My thoughts may change or they may not.

I like your rephrasing: "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?" Please answer the rephrased question. Thank you.

Please prove your claim with evidence. — Truth Seeker

Just did it.

No, you didn't. Please stop lying.

I did post proof. But I used my unbounded powers to make Hanover erase my post. Don't ask him however, I erased his memories.

One can be legally culpable without being morally culpable. — Truth Seeker

OK, since you are insisting, I believe that one can use (losely) both the terms "legal" and "moral" culpability.
It wasn't my main point anyway; just an observation, something that "striked" me as stange.

I think that no one is morally culpable but all adults of sound minds are legally culpable. — Truth Seeker

So, there's no moral culpability but only an illegal one. OK. then would you call lying, cursing, offending etc. "illegal"? I don't believe that you would.

Maybe, instead of "morally culpable", you really mean morally responsible? I think this term fits your topic and description better.

For instance, pure (severe, diagnosed) psychopaths --with no "sound mind", as you say-- cannot distinguish right from wrong and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. That's why when such persons are found guilty in court, they would not be sent to a mental facility instead of to prison.

Culpable for doing something morally incorrect. — Truth Seeker

if that something had nothing to do with morality, e.g. an incorrect calculation, an invalid statement, a common error etc., would you call that person "culpable" of doing that? This is simply "being mistaken"
Again, the word "culpable" is always connected to morality. (Except of course if it is used as a figure of speech.)

I became a vegan eighteen years ago because two vegans convinced me that it is morally wrong to be an omnivorous or carnivorous human. — Truth Seeker

This is good. Then, if you eat meat you will most probably feel guilty, whouldn't you? Why? Because you have violated a moral principle of yours? Isn't that right?
As with the the word "culpable", the word "gulty" is always connected to morality. (Except of course, again, if it is used as a figure of speech.)

I have also included beings such as robots and AI even though I am not convinced that the currently existing robots and AI are sentient. — Truth Seeker

What do you mean "convinced"? Whoever tries to convince you, even if it is yourself, tell them to look up the term "artificial intelligence" and undestand what it really means. (Although people usually hate doing that!)
(BTW I am an AI programmer and have not the least doubt that it is totally impossible for AI --as it is defined and known today-- to ever become sentient. :smile:)

I like your rephrasing: "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?" — Truth Seeker

Thanks.

Please answer the rephrased question. — Truth Seeker

I just checked and the old one --"Who is morally culpable?"-- is still there.

I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker

If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion.

But from my own view, things which were under determinant and constraints can never be freewill. You must accept something are determined for the humans, and they can never change or decide them.

Freewill is only valid when you had choices for different options for your decisions or actions.

The reason I have not edited my original question is that even if the phrasing is wrong, that's what I was thinking and asking at the time of posting. The posts are steps on my journey from then to now. If I edit the original post the record of the journey will be distorted and will no longer be accurate.

You can still answer the question "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions?

Yes, I would feel guilty if I ate meat or drank cow's milk or ate chicken's egg or wore leather or wore wool and so on. However, if my choices are inevitable then I can't really be blamed or praised for my choices. Are the choices made by all living things inevitable? I don't know. If hard determinism is true then it would make sense that all choices are inevitable. The legal system simply ignores the implications of hard determinism and assumes that people have free will and are legally culpable if they do anything illegal. This is done because society needs laws to function. So, people are assigned legal culpability even when they lack actual culpability.

I agree with your statement "If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion."

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't.

The reason I have not edited my original question is that even if the phrasing is wrong, that's what I was thinking and asking at the time of posting. — Truth Seeker

Of course. But I didn't suggest to change the question-title of the topic. Only the last question, which introduces the multiple choices.

You can still answer the question "Who from the following list could be judged responsible for one's actions? — Truth Seeker

Sure. I select the following one (of course): "All adult humans with sound minds"
(I also voted it. It's only too obvious. Glad to know that it received the vast majority of the votes. But I would like very much to know also what the minority has voted and their reasons. This would reveal interesting things, I guess.)

Yes, I would feel guilty if I ate meat or drank cow's milk or ate chicken's egg or wore leather or wore wool and so on. However, if my choices are inevitable then I can't really be blamed or praised for my choices. — Truth Seeker

Of course, even killing in defense and in order to save one's life cannot be considered unethical. The intention and purpose of one's actions plays a very important in ethics.

The legal system simply ignores the implications of hard determinism and assumes that people have free will and are legally culpable if they do anything illegal. — Truth Seeker

A fair, democratic system is correct in ignoring hard determinism and assuming free will. A person with a sound mind does have free will. Even criminals have, in general. Almost all of them are aware of what they are doing and they commit crimes on purpose. They have a choice about whether to commit a crime or not. They have reasons to do or not to do a certain crime. If they have an aberrated, sick mind, is another thing. This can be cured, using appropriate methods --mild ones, not electroshocks or heavy medicines.

***

One question: Do you believe that you composed this topic deterministically and not by your free will?
And, as en extension of this: Do you believe that people voted deterministically and not by their free will?

I am agnostic about a lot of things. Is solipsism true? I don't know. Is hard determinism true? I don't know. Do souls exist? I don't know. Is anyone responsible for the choices they make? I don't know.

I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. Concepts e.g. the definition of squares, circles, triangles, etc.
7. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
8. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, pre-life selection by souls hypothesis, resurrection hypothesis, reincarnation hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

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.

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing or all-powerful. I am the Truth Seeker, not the Truth Knower.

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't. — Truth Seeker

But what could anyone do about the determinants and constraints?