The past is fixed: Whether free will exists or not, events that have already occurred—genocides, crimes, historical outcomes—cannot be undone. Free will does not retroactively change the past.
Responsibility is mostly symbolic: Declaring people responsible does not reliably lead to justice. Legal and social systems often fail to hold everyone accountable, so the practical consequences of free will are limited.
Feeling of freedom is independent of reality: Humans feel free whether or not they actually have free will. This psychological experience is what guides behavior more than any metaphysical truth.
Habits substitute for free will: Much of daily life relies on habits and routines, which function whether free will exists or not. Feeling free in small choices (like breakfast) does not alter meaningful outcomes.
Choice is constrained by circumstances: Even if free will exists, choices are often constrained by external pressures or moral stakes. The degree of “freedom” in serious decisions is always limited.
Ontological vs. psychological distinction: Free will is a question about the nature of reality (ontology), not about how people feel or behave (psychology). The practical impact of free will on our current experience is minimal.
Illusion of free will suffices: Acting “as if” we have free will produces the same functional results as having actual free will. Belief in free will is a prop for feeling agency, not a requirement for action.
Free will does not affect immediate outcomes: Knowing whether free will is real does not change what we do in this moment or what options are available. The world responds the same way regardless.
Pressure and consequences dominate choice: The gravity of a decision and external consequences often overwhelm any notion of pure free choice. In reality, “freedom” is always partial.
Some thinkers embrace paradox (e.g., Calvin): Certain philosophers and theologians argue that the will can be both “free” and effectively determined. They accept the contradiction without concern, showing that debates about free will’s reality often coexist with practical acceptance of determinism.
FINALLY
Our interest in affirming free will is the fear of feeling that we are pawns. But absolute, unconstrained free will would be frightening and paralyzing. If nothing determined your choices, the sheer infinity of options could overwhelm action. Partial freedom (or the illusion of freedom) is more practical for functioning in the world. Free will belief is not about making a difference right now - but about comfort.