Based on what you're saying, it's immoral to send the shooter to prison or punish him in any way since he had no control over his actions and therefore was not guilty of assault or murder. Bet that theory goes right out the window when it's someone you know lying dead in a pool of blood. Does this apply to all actions? In that case mortality simply doesn't exist and there cannot be good or bad things. How far do you take this delusion is what I'm curious about?
> Based on what you're saying, it's immoral to send the shooter to prison or punish him in any way since he had no control over his actions and therefore was not guilty of assault or murder.
No, it's not; determinism applies to the punisher as much as the punished, so if the fact of determinism negates any moral culpability for the act being punished, then it likewise does so for the punishment.
Moral & immoral are just words for sharing human expression from one to another. In a sense the words are nonsensical when understanding determinism. Now with the foregoing communicated, humans should strive for improving life and understanding the current system is deeply flawed.
> How far do you take this delusion is what I'm curious about?
The delusion is assuming people have control over their actions. Yes it's wrong that we punish people that didn't have control over the life they were born into and what happens without any control because the universe made it so. Yes of course it applies to all actions humans are forced to do in life.
Determinism doesn't preclude the notion that I would be determinedly upset if that happened. In fact, the opposite is true. I would be very upset, because I like my family (most of the time).
This is where the phrases "don't poke the bear" and "don't grab a snake by its tail" come from. People have determined that it is likely to lead to a not-so-fun outcome.
Determinism, essentially, is empathy with nature. It is understanding that living creatures have needs, and when those needs are not met, bad things happen.
To use a light-hearted example. A parent might notice a deterministic pattern, whereby their child begins to cry when it is hungry. Feeding the child to prevent the crying is empathizing with that child.
"Empathizing with the shooter" is a matter of learning what lead the shooter to become a shooter so that you can try and prevent it from happening again. It doesn't mean that the shooting doesn't bother you, or that if someone is about to attack your family that you write it off as "predetermined".
Edit: A better example might be empathizing with an asteroid that is about to destroy the planet. Is being angry that it is on its current path helpful? Not really. Would you be upset if it crashed into Earth? Probably (albeit briefly).
Determinism = Understanding that the asteroid obeys the laws of physics, and looking out for situations that cause an asteroid to begin flying at the Earth so that it's damage can be mitigated, or prevented.
The blame would be at whatever created the universe. Since everything is chained backwards to that moment. You seem to not understand how things happen in reality if you're asking this question.
