Can you articulate those risks and rewards? If you can't, then you don't really have risk or reward. And it doesn't matter if you consider "being right or wron

Can you articulate those risks and rewards? If you can't, then you don't really have risk or reward. And it doesn't matter if you consider "being right or wrong" as risks and rewards themselves. It doesn't make it so. > How does one determine what does and doesn't have a point? A simple metric is the fact that regardless of the answer, the consequences are the same. And with the question of free will, the consequences are the same whether or not it exists. Nothing changes. > If free will does exist then we can modify our government based on the notion it does exist if we think it does. If it does exist and we think it does not, then such modifications might be incorrect. That alone is enough for us to determine if there is a point to the question, even outside of any more abstract interest in the question. You're ignoring the real fundamental point. If it doesn't exist, all that happens anyway. Because we would be fated to do so. If free will does not exist, we can't prevent ourselves from making the decisions we're making. We lose choice. If we were to discover free will did not exist, there still could be people who are predetermined to not accept the result. They would still believe they had choice. And since free will does not exist, they can't choose to change. Your crash example relies on free will existing in both cases. Because if free will doesn't exist, we cannot choose to not punish the first guy if we believe he should be punished because we don't get a choice in our beliefs.