Here is yet another claim - I've bolded it above - that you need to establish.Because we have a sense of justice. In order to have a sense of justice, you need free will. It is unlikely that natural selection would select a sense of justice if we did not have a free will.
So you accept that there would be a purpose to criminal justice system even without free will. I say that because you're reply directly above brings up a new issue that has nothing to do with my reasoning given for still having a criminal justice system in the face of no free will.But without a free will there is no such thing as morally bad things.
Furthermore, it makes little sense to me to define "moral" as that which concerns the well-being of sentient beings, in which case there will still be morally bad things without free will.
Here is your argument in the form of a syllogism:Since we know animals dont have free wills, then if we didnt have free wills we would not have those things either. . . .
Premise 1: Animals do not have free will.
Premise 2: Animals do not have culture, religion, math, etc.
Premise 3: Humans have culture, religion, math, etc.
Conclusion: Humans have free will.
The conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
Look it up, it's all there in the previous posts.I dont remember what you were asking how I knew.
How do you know that our refusal to eat when hungry, etc., is not the result of some other programmed behavior?Because we are not bound by cause and effect processes like the programmed behaviors above.
How do you know that?Because it is not a cause and effect process.
It is a fact that animals other than humans can learn; so, by your statement above, that would necessitate that animals have free will.Correct but learning requires free will.