Response to "Elaborating on Prior Arguments" by Elizabeth Pitroff

In this blog, I will be responding to Elizabeth Pitroff's post, entitled "Elaborating on Prior Arguments"

http://elizabethpitroff.blogspot.com/2013/02/elaborating-on-prior-arguments.html?showComment=1361159332042#c4099567161775087121

In her post, she says, "Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?" First, I think this depends on what she means by the term "judge." If she is talking about judging in a negative way, then my answer would be that according to determinists, it would be wrong to judge a person due to their opinion on this subject. For example, it would be wrong to dislike someone for their beliefs because it is determined what they believe in. 

Elizabeth also asks, "Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?" In response to this question, a determinist would argue that it is not our free will to choose. It is determined that we will decide to support one concept. Therefore, we aren't really choosing what we believe in. Also, in response to the question above, "If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?" I also believe that this depends on if we are judging negatively. If we are judging someone negatively based on their opinion on this subject, then it most likely means, in my opinion, that we are for the opposing side. If we weren't for the opposing side, then why would we be judging them negatively? However, according to determinists, we shouldn't be judging someone at all based on their beliefs because they are not to blame for their beliefs. It was determined that they would support that side of the debate. 

A Possible Compatibilist Argument

Question:  What would be the argument of a compatibilist? In other words, how do they go about arguing that determinism can coexist with free will?

In response to this question, I suppose a compatibilist would argue that determinism and free will coexist because even if determinism is true, the illusion of free will still affects humans anyway. In my opinion, this would not mean that free will and determinism coexist. It just would mean that the illusion of free will coexists with determinism. As I said in my Q&A response, the fact that free will is just an illusion means that free will itself does not really exist, making it unable to coexist with determinism, because determinism cannot coexist with something that does not really exist itself. However, I consider myself an imcompatibilist, and a determinist, so my response is biased. So, I guess one approach a compatibilist could take to respond to my question is that free will coexists with determinism because humans seem to naturally feel a sense of free will, even if they agree with determinism.