Can you surprise yourself? Dilemma!

The problem with thinking of humans as robots is that robots are objects, not subjects. They can be bought, sold, disposed of, destroyed without any moral problem. So how do you justify ethics, if we are all robots? Why can't I kill my neighbor, if he's just another machine, and he pisses me off?

La morale consiste à se savoir esprit, et à ce titre, obligé absolument, car noblesse oblige.
--Alain

Ethics is not just an evolutionary "accident" but a group necessity trait absolutely fundamental for energy efficient cooperation at complex tasking. Without which you cant have civilization. The path of least resistence like electricity in a grid, the best algorithm, like Nature seems to demand everywhere...
We do it (some of us the system is complex and intricate) out of necessity not because we have free will or are good Christians.
That's my pov and from where I stand we don't have any free will on ethical behaviour, any more than a rock making a parabola when thrown out in the air...
We do what we must do. As for "responsibility" it is a useful concept in today's frame of work socially speaking. Ask "me" again in 200 years time and the answer would be not judgement or faulting wrong doers but rather reconditioning, and genetic reprogramming, chemical thererapy, etc...

So you're saying ethics are just part of the machine. Gives an entirely new meaning to "moral code".... as in "computer code". I must admit it's logically consistent.

I don't see much practical difference between your and my theories. They are undistinguishable by practical experience. Therefore our difference is purely metaphysical, a question of perspective. We're seeing the same glass; I'm saying it's half full and you're saying it's half empty.

I agree with you that our differences are not fundamental.