It's really interesting how we reconstruct our perspective when it's a human. If a bear were to kill a child we'd use the fact that they have no free will to su

It's really interesting how we reconstruct our perspective when it's a human. If a bear were to kill a child we'd use the fact that they have no free will to summarily shoot it without a trial. On the other hand, if it's a person, we use their lack of free will to absolve them of responsibility; or at least that's what we instinctively assume should result from their lack of free will. I notice this seems to be what people are defending against when it comes to denying free will, but it seems like the opposite should follow. We should think that no free will means that it doesn't matter; just shoot it and be done. Yet we assume it must mean people will somehow get a "no free will pass". Of course, there's a simple explanation that people don't like the idea of just being along for the ride. If we are punished and rewarded based on nothing, it leads to despair, similar to thinking of death with no afterlife. Obviously, if we dismiss the person's rights for not having free will, we're also dismissing our own. That weakness aside, I just find it fascinating that the exact same reasoning is used to come to opposite conclusions. If any vegans are here they might notice something. Bears have no rights, people have max. So perhaps we just need to improve bear rights. You could argue that when a bear eats people (in a really "bad bear" way), we should just fence it in somewhere and toss it some trash; sure it might not be happy, but it deserves the same mercy as people.