What you're saying makes sense, but then you have to talk about words like "action", "agent", "punish". In my definition it is predicated on the idea of a perso

What you're saying makes sense, but then you have to talk about words like "action", "agent", "punish". In my definition it is predicated on the idea of a person making deliberate action, yours is that an occurrence has a negative effect on people and so it's cause should be negated. Even if morality as you use it applies even without free will, the words you are using to describe the scenario imply another word, "decide". Without free will, can one be an agent without agency? Is an action an action or simply an occurrence? Can we even examine morality? We must decide first what to punish, then decide to punish. Or are these behaviors in some way predetermined as well? Was it predetermined for us to ponder whether this conversation was predetermined or not? Do you require the ability to make decisions in order to adapt to changing conditions? Without free will can we even talk about game theory? I mean, we can talk about whatever we want, but is the concept valid any longer?