It is ironic that the first part of the article argues that there is no free will, and the second part exhorts us to make better choices because we might otherwise kill, or be unfair.
I could not help but note the author appended his name to the piece, even though he was determined by all his inputs to write it, and clearly deserved no credit.
I find it fascinating that the author can discuss free will without acknowledging the issue of chance. If Caesar had no strong opinions, he might have flipped a coin. If there is such a mechanism in the human brain, then decisions will not be determined beforehand, anymore than a dice-player’s lucky seven is pre-determined. (This was the understanding of our author’s fellow materialists, Epicurus and Lucretius).So the definition on which the argument is based-
Free will is defined by the prospect that, given the identical situation, the identical run of events, Caesar could have chosen to have the gladiator die, instead.
-is flawed. Free will is better defined as “significant choice” (D.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980). Insofar as the author posits that we can make significant choices based on what he has written, he has contradicted his original thesis.