That is because you seem to fail to see where it leads - to be fair, so do most of those who share the idea. To put it at its bluntest, without free will, we are all just machines. Destroying a person becomes the same as destroying a computer - say - wasteful, but nothing more.
I'm well familiar with that basic argument (it's repeated enough around here) - I've tried to address it in the past but I don't think I've been success in conveying the idea I've been trying to get at. I'll try to set it out here.
There are a few different angles to what you've brought up:
1. If we don't have free we then we are just machines. Let's say that it is accurate to describe us as machines (ie: that we operate mechanistically, through cause and effect (with perhaps some randomness thrown in for quantum good measure). I would argue that we should ascribe no positive or negative value to this. It simply describes how we operate. This is neither good nor bad.
2. "We are just machines": this phrase is used a lot, but rarely elaborated on (I hope Sciborg comes back to the forum at some point, we were in the middle of a good debate around this point, I'd like to resume that discussion.) What does it mean to say that we are "just machines"? For that matter, what does it mean to say that we are "just" anything?
We are living beings: are we "just" living beings? Do all living beings have the same properties?
We are animals: are we "just" animals? Do all animals have the same characteristics?
We are machines: are we "just" machines? Do all machines have the same qualities?
If we are machines then we are machines with certain attributes such as the ability to have experiences, to love, laugh, cry, think, sing, paint, etc. Other machines may not have those abilities. If we are machines, then we are machines with the ability to value.
We either have free will or we don't. If we have free will, then everything we value in this life we value having free will. If we don't have free will: then everything we value in this life we value not having free will. Every love you've had, every moment of joy you've had, every bit of pain you've had you've had whether or not we have free will. Changing your mind about this notion does not change these experiences. Do you get what I'm saying? This is important to how to conceptualize this.
3. Destroying a person is therefore the same as destroying a computer.
What follows from the above is no: they are not the same thing. We don't value each other because of whether we think we are properly classified as machines or not, we value each other because of the abiliies we have to love, form friendships, are nature as social animals, sympathise, empathise. We have an interest in working together for all of our benefits, to survive, thrive and be happy, and all the other things we value in each other. We form communities to this end. Destroying a computer affects us very differently than destroying a fellow human. (just like destroying insects and other animals affect us differently than destroying human animals.). A society where there is no value to human life is a pretty miserable place to live. We affect each other, we value each other.
4. Is free will "materialist".
I think the whole question of free will is exciting because to me, it is the weakest link in materialist thinking. The best way to see that materialist ideas are flawed, is to follow the idea that we don't have real free will to its ultimate ends - such as the question as to whether science itself could really exist if those who practice it, don't have real free will.
As I suggested above, I don't think the free will issue goes away if we are dealing with non-material entities. If these entities exist they operate in a certain manner. They may operate by different rules (ie: not the laws of physics), but we should not assume that they don't have their own rules. If we're taking the evidence of accounts of experiences of non-material beings, we are related accounts that follow coherent orders: accounts of being expressing messages (ie: one word following the other in an coherent order), we have accounts of spirits moving physical objects (one step at a time), we have concepts such as love and experience for these beings that are presented coherently. There is no reason to presume that if these beings exist, that their will is any freer than ours. (this isn't an argument for or against, just that the question should not be presumed to be restricted to physicalist world views.
The question: could science exist if we didn't have free will doesn't help us, it seems to me, figure out if we have free will. Nor does it if you replace "science" with anything else. We've done science whether or not we have free will. I'm not sure how science is any different than any other thought process.
David[/QUOTE]