Moral responsibility in the multiverse

So are you now going to go out on a murder, rape and pillage spree? If not, why not?

Could you explain why you believe in determinism? My mind is involving to
this very much.

Because he is destined to?

So the question is why you believe in free will!

Where did I say that?

Here -------|
..................... V


"So are you now going to go out on a murder, rape and pillage spree? If not, why not?"

It does not follow from the fact that I asked that question, or rather, those two questions, that I believe in free will.

Something else is making choices for me, ergo meaninglessness? If a terrorist were holding a gun to my head, it's still the workings within me that have to figure-out that I even need to comply, a mannequin isn't going to care squat. The past events and conceptions stored in my head that are involved in determining the choice still pertain to me, they are not a stash in the bloody surroundings being beamed to my brain by Mastermind (Universe / Multi-Universe).

The rest of the cosmos, or the supposed lawful generalizations it is so devoutly conforming to without a single anomalous event ever occurring, seems to be a pretty wimpy heteronomous agency. It needs a functioning body to evolve that can actually perform its own perceiving, understanding, and judgement making -- since nature at large is so intellectually vacant and devoid of motives and direct ability for literally pulling the strings of real puppets incapable of autonomous operation. If the working body scheme/template of John-X, and his past states or the current state determines what he is going to do next with the information his senses receive, then that is still that distinct system or continuing process called John-X (past, present, and future) making his conclusions / choices and participating in his own understanding of life.

It's remarkable that most naturalists probably agree that the general pattern of being a universe (or even multi-universe) is unconscious, without design/purpose, and stupider (in human terms) than a roll of **** standing on a rock in the midday sun. Yet at the same time many of them are hell-bent on hiking their arses up and believing that this vast spatiotemporal Other that they're embedded in is spearing their GI tract and bobbing them about like a hot-dog at the end of a stick. No decision is their own, it's instead the Blind Overarching Natural Dumbass manipulating them about, a stone's toss away from bygone ventriloquist dummy Moses sitting in old Abrahamic God's lap, guiding the Hebrew tribes.

...if a rock goes on falling in your direction do you blame the rock or do you deal with it ?
...problems should be dealt with not by faulting people but by preventing or correcting their natural mistakes...
finally :
...whatever is truly possible to be corrected will be corrected...(universal necessity) > ...refers to particular events not general category's...
for instance:
Its is both true that if I did broke the glass bottle then I had to broke the glass bottle given present circumstances...as equally it is valid, that if I had been more careful the glass bottle might not had been broken...there is no contradiction between these 2 assertions...the problem here goes with uncertainty concerning predictive knowledge...while it is not necessary, generally speaking, that people carrying glass bottles always must broken them, in particular, if it is the case that in some event someone broke a glass bottle then the glass bottle was meant to be broken in that very specific context...nothing awkward here behind the fact that strict causes lead to strict effects...at least as far as present regularity's continue to work.

...would be interesting to bring new conceptual ideas to this problem like : Sufficient ocurrent Awareness, or Sufficient occurent Drive/ocurrent will, (not free), as Sufficient occurent Work.

Sufficient here intends to mean as enough to bring about a given effect...but just to make it clear, again, here intention is not seen as free but as that which occurs or happens to be the case...

And just why do I call it "ocurrent" some might rightfully ask ? Is it not true that intention carry s in its very meaning free will and decision ? Well considering unconscious processes as an enormous significant part of brain processes and even conscious processes as deeply intertwined with sub conscious and unconscious processes the fair answer still is no...no we are not free ! Our decision processes have causes which are not self caused therefore they are conditioned to be willed as much a computer is bind to make calculations upon inputs...from the fact that we conscientiously acknowledge or recognize our willing does not follow that "we" whatever "we" refers to, yet another conundrum, were responsible for the circumstances which were sufficient for our decision making as a free one...in the end it does not matter much given our usage of the term "free will" only intends to mean we were not forced against our conscious will, and that much is also true...still where it all matters on this subject goes regarding pocket rightfulness and our pre historical which for retribution while needing to morally fault someone...we should all come to understand that criminals should be imprisoned not because they are to fault as free willing beings but because they are dangerous and structurally unstable...now that's civilized reasoning but maybe a bridge to far !...

Determinism as opposed to what? Free will?

That's a bit like saying you believe in left, but not right, isn't it?