> And I'm saying I don't find this compelling at all. It's an utterly idiotic argument in the face of determinism, because them wanting to make the choice in a

> And I'm saying I don't find this compelling at all. It's an utterly idiotic argument in the face of determinism, because them wanting to make the choice in a deterministic interpretation is itself beyond their ability to control. But that's irrelevant. There is no "them" beyond the entity that determinism constructed, and the entity that determinism constructed wanted to make that choice, therefore that entity should be held responsible so it learns right from wrong and that it can do better in the future. It's really hard to understand exactly what the issue is. It seems you agree with all of the following: 1. The entity with a functional mind is the proximate cause of the outcome in a long chain of deterministic causes. 2. The entity's mind contains moral content and so understands the moral ramifications of its choice. 3. The entity wanted to make that choice and was not coerced by another entity. 4. Moral blame for wrongdoing and praise for ethical choices shapes future behaviour of entities. Yet you somehow disagree that this process of moral feedback matches how humans apply moral responsibility, and so step 3 matches what we've been calling a "freely willed choice". > In a deterministic interpretation they are learning only in the same way a computer updating a weight in a decision graph or neural network does Yes. > so replace the bullet with a program firing a weapon then, which by your description are morally responsible. If the program is mentally competent just like a human, ie. capable of learning and making decisions considering moral factors like we do, then yes, holding it responsible makes perfect sense. Bullets aren't that. Exactly what holding a firing program responsible means can be different than how we hold humans responsible, but the process by which we assign responsibility is the same.