the irony is that even in the absence of free will, because we all experience freedom we can still talk as though it exists. just because we don't "get to choose who we are" doesn't mean that all our actions are excused--just because i didn't "choose" to be a moral person doesn't mean that my morality is somehow invalidated, and just because i didn't "choose" to share those morals with others doesn't mean that it's somehow a pointless enterprise, since I can still make others more ethical through my own ethical behavior even if there is no "i" and no "you." (as he says, we're mostly influenced by our peers) the whole free will argument is basically completely meaningless, and really has no bearing on ethics or morality.
|