You made a claim to know what most people thought?
Where in that link does it demonstrate anything to support your original claim?
It depends how you define free will. The difference between compatibilism and no-free-will, is a disagreement over how “free will” is defined. It’s not a disagreement over matters of fact. Compatibilism, is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, it faces criticism for potentially redefining “free will” in a way that undermines its core meaning, and for failing to adequately address the implications of a causally determined world on moral responsibility.
As I said earlier, if everything were predetermined, then morality would be rather pointless, to me anyway.
Really? I’d have said some autonomy of choice was essential for moral assertions to make any sense, how can something be immoral or moral if we have no choice but to do it? We’d become amoral automatons.
A choice requires some autonomy of will, and yes without any a priori experiences those choices could not be considered moral, when we say babies are innocent, this is likely what we are expressing, their actions can carry no guilt, as they have nothing to base decisions on, though I am dubious babies or children have free will, in the sense an adult human being does.
Only to another cat, all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups must necessarily possess the ability to learn what is, and what is not, acceptable behaviour to the group. Many other species exhibit moral behaviour, and empathy.
Firstly if you’re quoting the link, you should place the text in quotes so we know it is a quote, secondly that doesn’t appear to support this:
Now compare that to your earlier claim:
…certainly not the emboldened part. Also 72.8% of whom? If you meant "most people in a particular surveyed group then you misrepresented it as “most people”, so you need to clarify what you’re claiming firstly, as it seems to be changing.