Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Bingo!
BTW, I think that soft determinism/compatibilism is incoherent. Just because I don't think that it's an empirical question and that no rational argument can be given in support of one position rather than another, there's still lots of philosophical work to be done to investigate the various positions (there is still considerable progress in understanding and refinement of the various positions over the years and is still continuing - a topic that I work on).
I think you hold something generally similar to the position of Thomas Aquinas on this issue, according to whom the denial of free will is among "the oddest philosophical opinions," because it is inconsistent (except by extraordinary mental leaps) with such notions as responsibility, deliberation, exhortation, precept, punishment, praise, and blame, all of which are foundational notions for any moral philosophy. The denial of free will is therefore like the denial of the reality of motion (by those philosophers who followed Parmenides): it carries absurd consequences and destroys entire branches of philosophy, but nevertheless the arguments of one who makes such a denial cannot be directly refuted.