Compatibilism says yes to determinism, but also that you “only have yourself to blame.” 🤔 Do they mean it?

They say we’re like dominos, doing life deterministically. Yet have no problem saying things like “You could have done otherwise.” Confusing? That’s the point. I call bullshit.

While I write here on Substack about language, values, culture, and philosophy, there’s a deeper stack of arguments happening in parallel, most of them elsewhere, usually on Reddit, where the conversation tends to unspool faster and with less polish.

One of those arguments, across multiple threads, has reached what I’d call a plateau: no new counterpoints, no fresh engagement, and a quiet refusal to continue past a certain edge. So I’m surfacing it here to close the loop, for now. This will serve as a permanent reference and standing invitation to resume the debate if anyone wants to keep going.

—

Lately, when I criticize certain Compatibilists (not for their metaphysics, but for how they use language) I’m told I’m “going full Sith.” That I’m claiming to know what others really think, that I’m assigning bad faith, accusing people of lying or knowingly misleading the public.

But I’m not speculating about secret thoughts. I’m pointing at patterns. I’m describing what happens when people say one thing in academic papers and another in public forums, and then refuse to clean up the language when asked.

This follows from something I’ve said before: even if determinism were disproven, my stance wouldn’t change. I don’t ground my rejection of moral responsibility in determinism per se.

I reject the idea of moral desert under any metaphysical condition, because neither determinism nor randomness supports the intuition that people deserve praise or punishment in the basic sense.

Blaming sentient dominos for falling is mean and stupid whether they realize they’re caught in a causal chain or not.

I’m focused on how desert language functions. On the harm it does. And on why certain Compatibilists (despite rejecting basic desert) still defend the public use of language that implies it.

So yes, in my opinion, some of my opponents are knowingly working against clear, consistent, parsimonious thought and language, unlike the “winnable” ones who are just confused.

The reason they do this is because they feel it’s better to stick with the traditional language of deservedness even when they don’t believe in basic desert moral responsibility. They think it’s permissible, even preferable. I don’t. They believe if anyone finds moral desert language confusing or conducive to basic-desert thinking, the solution is to educate them, not change the language.

Here are some examples of phrases I think we shouldn’t use if we believe in determinism, or are operating as if we do, which describes the type of Compatibilists I’m addressing:

• “They got what they deserved”

• “They only have themselves to blame”

• “They could’ve done otherwise”

• “They chose this path”

• “They brought this on themselves”

• “Do the crime, do the time”

“She got what she deserved.”

---

These phrases are everywhere. In politics, courtrooms, parenting, journalism, and everyday conversation. My ask is simple 🙏:

“We Compatibilists don’t mean what most people think we mean when we say deserve.”

My opponents refuse to say this.

They point to tradition, lineage, and technical nuance. But I claim the following:

1. Most (or at least many) people believe in basic desert moral responsibility.

2. That belief often reverses, reliably, when people are walked through something like the Pereboom-style manipulation argument.

3. Exit surveys and studies suggest that, when in a calm and focused state of clear thinking, people’s intuitions about moral responsibility change.

4. So why not aspire to that focused state, rather than defend intuitions rooted in noise, emotion, or cultural residue?

5. Much of our moral language reinforces reactive attitudes well beyond what’s needed for deterrence or incentive, and ends up justifying excessive punishment, shame, or entitlement.

6. Some Compatibilists (like Reddit philosopher, Simon Hibbs) seem to agree with all the above, but still refuse to admit that the language itself is part of the problem.

   It’s…

Listen. ANYONE who holds a philosophical stance believes their opponents are wrong. That’s not Sith. That’s just having a position.

What I’m pointing to is something else. When some Compatibilists are pressed, they admit they’ve changed the frame in order to preserve something useful or comforting. That’s a value tradeoff. But when it goes unacknowledged, it looks, to me, like obfuscation.

Forget whether determinism is even true. My beef is about whether your framework as a Compatibilist confronts how language impacts lived experience. When people choose a frame not because it’s cleaner, but because it keeps certain emotional or social intuitions intact, that’s motivated reasoning. Arguably my reasoning is motivated, too. Whether we see ourselves as a cooly metaphysical robot or a cuddly Pragmatic like Dennett, the choice to reason in the first place is preceded by motivation. Fine.

But if premature pragmatism tries to smuggle in aesthetic values of the meritocratic persuasion and disguise them as parsimony, and furthermore, it contribute to needless suffering, I’m going to call that out.

I don’t think belief in moral responsibility is necessary for society to function. On the contrary, it makes things way worse.

Philosopher Gregg Caruso makes this case in his Ted Talk and I agree. (It’s on YouTube, lean at about ten minutes long.)

And even if you don’t, that’s fine, because either way, the argument for continuing to use thick, desert-laden folk language (of the you-could-have-done-otherwise type) is WEAK.

Why?

• It represents the less parsimonious intuition when people think clearly.

• It’s driven by values that don’t align with actual wellbeing.

• And it can only persist through cognitive dissonance and ambiguity.

So yes, I’m blunt. And I’m serious. I have respect for people who disagree. But when there’s a gap in our views, I’ll name it and diagnose it, because I think the stakes are real.

I’ll state my opponent’s view in a way they would likely confirm is accurate. And yet, when the argument reaches this point, the conversation usually stops. Because the next step would be admitting that rhetorical clarity might require real sacrifice on their part.

At the core, it’s a values clash.

I like parsimony and the demonstrably more common intuition under deliberate, clear-thinking conditions.

Hibbsian Compatibilism (see philosopher Simon Hibbs) values preserving the public-facing comfort of moral desert, even inside a deterministic worldview.

They claim it’s all about consequences, and that this is obvious. And that where it’s not obvious, the move should be to educate, NOT adjust the language.

That’s fine in theory, but the public doesn’t hear “deserve” in a purely consequentialist way, and at this rate, they never will.

Compatibilist language gives ample cover to systems and behaviors that enforce cruelty, punishment, and withdrawal of empathy. Most people don’t get the fine print. They don’t want to.

They—WE, AS HUMAN ANIMALS—want permission to enjoy our good fortunes unperturbed. The reflexive, naive belief in the TRUTH of basic moral deservedness is how we protect that permission.

Compatibilists are the ones broadcasting that we CAN have moral desert.

But they know full well that BASIC moral desert, the kind irrespective of future outcomes, is incoherent, absurd.

And yet they REFUSE TO SAY:

“We Compatibilists don’t mean what most people think we mean when we say deserve.”

That refusal is telling.

I find it evasive.

I find it aesthetically muddy.

And I think it enables unnecessary suffering.

It’s part of a broader moral atmosphere shaped by triage, meritocracy, and a deep cultural addiction to blame. Even in philosophy’s highest circles, that influence runs unchecked.

I may be wrong. It’s just my opinion. But I think it’s fucking gross.

So that’s where I’ve landed. I’ve written it down now. If anyone wants to pick it up, I’m around.

Until then, forgive me for thinking the Stillwellian approach is right until someone proves me wrong.

(“Hey” by Stella Stillwell)