1st Coyne: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2026/02/22/a-muddled-argument-shermer-on-the-reality-of-free-will/
2nd Michael Shermer: https://www.skeptic.com/article/free-will-determinism-and-compatibilism-shermer-responds-to-jerry-coyne/
3rd Coyne: https://www.skeptic.com/article/yes-we-have-no-free-will/
https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1sx60ll/im_sorry_responsibility_is_a_given/ is probably a troll post mocking compatibilists who just assume moral responsibility is a given.
But is just assuming moral responsibility really irrational?
What's different in observing that say morality itself is just a given in humans? I don't have any proper 'proof' other than that it is observed in humans in every society and we change it but some kind of morality always still remains, along with some justice and injustice.
So can't we assume moral responsibility is a given in the same way?
The next step of this compatibilist 'argument' would then be that we can change the kind of moral responsibility that is preferable, while acknowledging it exists.
Every week we have heated discussions between compatibilists and skeptics on this topic, but do libertarians think that compatibilism is some kind of semantic sleight of hand?
It needs to be cleaned up and stained some, but this is a 1:8 scale replica of a mosasaur skeleton above my entryway.