Suppose someone is on trial for murder. Consider the two cases below.
Case 1: Humans have free will.
Judge: Since you are responsible for your actions, you deserve punishment for your crime.
Case 2: Humans have no free will
Judge: You had no choice in committing the crime, and I have no choice in punishing you for it.
Nothing really changes in these two cases.
From what I’ve seen, determinists such as Sam Harris are inconsistent: He tells you about the criminal not having free will, and expects you to develop more compassion towards him as a result of it (but if he has no free will, neither do you, and aren’t obliged to even able to change your judgement of him.)
.
