So basically, bla, bla, bla, playing the victim, bulverism, irrelevant handwaving, more polishing own statue.
Look, being deep and profound is kind of like being a lady. If you have to TELL people that you are, you probably aren't. Just support your case. Polishing your own statue about how the problems you think about are so hard and deep is not a substitute for actually having a coherent argument. If the problem is too hard for you, maybe let the ones who know what they're talking about handle it?
Yes, I gather that you don't actually know much about moral philosophy.
Otherwise you'd already know that the actual goal is figuring out what kind of things are best for society as a whole, and "blaming" even appears only in as much as one can say that certain actions are detrimental. Whether free will gets in the way of apportioning moral blame or not doesn't change the fact that you CAN say that something is good or detrimental to society. "Moral evil" is simply saying that something bad was called intentionally or by inaction by a human agent, so nothing changes if they were in fact the victims of determinism. At the end of the day, they still caused the outcome. But even if you dispense with the concept entirely, you can still say that an action was merely "bad", so you can still pass judgment on whether it should or shouldn't be done.
It's an optimization problem. Apportioning moral blame is not how you solve one.
To use an analogy, you can say that it's detrimental to traffic to have a giant pothole in the middle of the road, even if you can't assign moral blame to the water freezing that caused it. Or that concerning the people, maybe they SHOULD build the roads more robust like they do in Germany, and SHOULDN'T save a few bucks on road construction if it impedes traffic every winter. Whether you can wag a finger at someone and call them evil for saving a few bucks at the expense of ruining the infrastructure, doesn't change what the solution to the actual problem is.
But more importantly, again, show which actual proponent of determinism actually proposed that the conclusion is to gas the retarded, or admit that it was your own strawman. Handwaving some more doesn't change the fact that you haven't actually met that burden of proof. It's that simple.
Only because you don't know what you're talking about, and seem to think that handwaving and spewing irrelevant nonsense is an acceptable substitute. Point in case about not knowing what you're talking about:
It's a medical term, silly. It has an actual definition in the DSM. Look up words if you don't know them. They mean stuff.
Yes, optimization problems with large numbers of variables are HARD. Arguments about how to resolve such frictions is why whole tomes get written on the topic. But it doesn't mean that if it's hard, it's somehow just as valid to just give up and claim some simplistic nonsense instead, like you've been doing.
You can start by not using equivocations to nonsense redefinitions of the words. Again, nobody except you really proposes to maximize "freedom" as in 'your actions are free of having any reasons', which is the only one that determinism gets in the way of.
Ok, then: where does Skinner propose to gas the retarded? Or generally, that the solution to some people being a bother is to eliminate them? Otherwise it was your own strawman all along.
You need to first support them, not ask that someone contradicts them. That's literal argument from ignorance fallacy.
So basically you just found an excuse for why you can STILL not address point 3?
