Well yes, "hard determinism," is generally defined as "determinism in which freedom is impossible." So it's true that, given not-P, not-P. But the way I've generally seen it the "hardness" of determinism follows from simple determinism. I.e., lack of freedom isn't a starting premise, but rather taken as a conclusion. What I meant was that "given determinism" the "hardness" does not seem to automatically follow.

I can see why smallism/reductionism and causal closure are generally taken as excluding any sort of freedom though. If those premises are included, then the properties of mindless fundemental particles determines everything, which leaves no room for freedom. But these seem to me to be extra premises (with dubious evidence to support them) outside the main premise of determinism. Or, if there is something like strong emergence, then metal events are just a type of physical event, and they can have causal powers just fine under causal closure.

I think hard determinism is true. — Truth Seeker

If hard determinism is true then we don't choose to hold people responsible; we just do. Asking if we should makes no sense.

Compatibilism is soft determinism, not hard determinism. If hard determinism is true then compatibilism is false. — Michael

If hard determinism is true, then you think hard determinism and compatibilism are not compatible because you have to.

Asking if we should makes no sense. — Michael

Yes it does. He had to.

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable. — Truth Seeker

Why do we do that?

There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.
— Truth Seeker

Why do we do that? — Hanover

Because there are many ways of understanding culpability. In its most general form, blame is pointing to the inner or outer demons capricously and arbitrarily pushing and pulling us in various, potentially nefarious directions. We blame these demons and seek to influence them in the aim of rehabilitating the person who has them, or to separate them from society. This form of culpability is perfectly compatible with hard determinism.

How do you know that demons exist?

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable. — Truth Seeker

Yes. But asking if we should makes no sense, given that we don't have a choice.

But that doesn't mean the door is closed on God. Only that God cannot be accessed by our Minds. Other means must be employed... — ENOAH

Sure, God could be an abstract object which is not perceivable via sense perception. Or it could be a manifestation in some mundane physical forms such as light (remember, God said, Let there be light, and there was light. in the Genesis?), or as ancient Egyptians believed God could be Sun. Without Sun, all life on earth will be extinguished within days.

As you suggested, God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting?

Yes it does. He had to. — Hanover

Fair. I suppose a more appropriate response is to say that any claim that we should or shouldn't do something is true only if hard determinism is false, and so if hard determinism is true then the claim that we shouldn't hold people responsible is not true.

↪Joshs How do you know that demons exist? — Truth Seeker

A demon is any arbitrary force or influence. Hard determinism is based on such demons.

I agree.

I thought demons were evil spirits - according to the Bible, Jesus cast out lots of demons. Christians still do exorcisms of demons to heal people. I have witnessed several exorcisms but did not see any demons.

God could be contacted in some other way than seeing or hearing him. It proves human reason and thinking is not really the 100% certain criteria for all the knowledge in the world.

What are the other means for employment you suggesting? — Corvus

I think God--if there is--transcends our human constructions/conventions, including reason and morality. If God is the Creator/Sustainer/Recycler of all that there is beyond such constructions/conventions, i.e. the "Lord/Lady" of Nature, then accessing God would be by being that nature, your true nature, that living breathing organism. Be-ing a human creature, accepting that reality, as opposed to what we spend the vast majority of our time doing, creating our own reality becoming a human "god."
To incorporate the Abrahamic tradition, the former is the tree of life, the latter is the tree of knowledge.

that it is impossible for a language possessor to remain silent on things one feels inquisitive? Therefore he broke his own code as soon as he uttered the sentence? — Corvus

Yes, and so do we all

I agree with you

There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable. — Truth Seeker

The point I was making is that if HD is true, we assign culpability because we do and there is no reason or purpose for that. It's like asking why an acorn makes a sound when it strikes the ground. It just does. Why do I think you're guilty. I just do. Why do I put you in prison. I just do. Why do I think I put you in prison because you were guilty. I just do. That's just what happens when one pool ball strikes another.

Because there are many ways of understanding culpability. In its most general form, blame is pointing to the inner or outer demons capricously and arbitrarily pushing and pulling us in various, potentially nefarious directions. We blame these demons and seek to influence them in the aim of rehabilitating the person who has them, or to separate them from society. This form of culpability is perfectly compatible with hard determinism. — Joshs

Your offering reasons for your behaviors as motivators for your behaviors assumes your evaluations of your behaviors are based upon judgment by you and could be different if you wanted them to be. But that's not part of HD.

HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will.

HD would be you sitting listening to facts and then being asked for your conclusion, and then you would offer up the reasons that you were pre-determined to offer and then you would offer your conclusion that was also pre-determined. This idea that you could have decided otherwise isn't part of HD. That's part of free will — Hanover

The presuppositions that guide HD and free-will advocates are not nearly as far apart as it might seem. In both cases a fundamentally arbitrary and socially non-relational basis of behavior is presumed. Each assume a way to determine correctness of action. The former ties it to scientific truth and the latter most often to divine moral truth.

pre-determined — Hanover

I do not think this is hte right word. It is determined at the time, not previously, in any practical sense. Yes, your response is determined by the exact sequence of events that preceded it, but it is not already determined before you actually do the thing. That would be time-travel.

I agree.

As far as I know, morality is made up by humans. This is why it varies across time and place. Morality is a matter of subjective opinions. — Truth Seeker

Does it mean that there is no such things as morally good or bad to begin with? Does it not invalidate the question "Who is morally culpable?"?

No, we can still have moral values. Morality does not have to be objective to be valid. For example, I am a vegan egalitarian. I think being a vegan is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore. I think being an egalitarian is more ethical than being an elitist ableist misogynist racist speciesist plutocrat. If the world ran according to my wishes, there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. All living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. We would all be forever happy.

OK, you say that it is still good to have objective moral values. I think we do. It is far stronger than one's opinions or wishful thinkings on the moral issues. And some moral issues are also legal issues, and vice versa.

Whatever the case, the world don't care about HD. Regardless of what the hard determinism or constraints were, if someone came into your house, stole everything of your valuables, then you will morally accuse and legally punish the wrong doer, even if he says to you, that he was programmed to steal your valuables by his DNA, and he had no choice. Would you not?

I didn't say that objective moral values exist. I said that morality does not have to be objective to be valid. How can we possibly know about anything objectively? Everything we know is subjective. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. Our thoughts and emotions are subjective. Our values are subjective. There is exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know my thoughts and dreams and hallucinations, etc. There is shared subjectivity e.g. many people can know what this post says.

I didn't say that objective moral values exist. I said that morality does not have to be objective to be valid. How can we possibly know about anything objectively? Everything we know is subjective. — Truth Seeker

But how can anyone know about subjectivity apart from one's own? Isn't shared subjectivity objectivity?
Until subjectivity is shared with others, it is private to the owner of subjectivity, which is unknown. When you shared your subjectivity, it then becomes objectivity.

I know my own subjective experience of being me. Just as you know your own subjective experience of being you. We can share our experiences - that way we can know about each other's subjectivity. For example, I have nightmares every night. Now you all know the fact that I have nightmares. Something you did not know until I shared it.

I agree with you.