I think determinism and free will are matters of identification. If I believe I'm moving my finger, I'm identifying with whatever it is that moves everything. To be a determinist is to objectify everything (including myself). — frank

Gotcha gotcha. Does a sort of compliance with our actions, say pre-determined ones, come with this identification? I think some compatibilists argue that my freely going along with wherever the universe pushes me denotes a sort of freedom, albeit not the sort that we traditionally attribute to ourselves.

I’m also curious as to what you mean by objectify. As in, reduces our inner experience to tiny little atoms being pushed forward in the same way they are with apples or tractors? I think that we can objectify everything, but still hold that those objects give way to emergent phenomena, such as you and I identifying with our vessel and being along for the ride.

I agree with your analysis except for the use of the term “delusion”, mainly because in psychiatry, delusion is something to be rid of. I’m not sure which word would be better, though. I think it’s a NECESSARY delusion. — Noah Te Stroete

Perhaps necessary in a host scenarios, but there's something to be said about the type of bearing that things such as 'Ought' statements hold on our psychological health. "I ought to be this", but what if you just aren't? Should we feel ashamed because we don't uphold the principles of some external moral doctrine?

I'm not really sure about the answer.

Ought statements, for the most part, are about resentment. The ought statement says: "That shouldn't have happened." It's a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. Looked at this way, morality, for the most part, is delusion. — frank

Very Nietzschean. It seems like you're getting close to determinism, no?