I dont think it avoids the moral judgement, it just obfuscates it, or replaces it with a comparable concept.
You dont need free will to rationally have disgust, indignation, and retribution. You can rationally punish someone who contracted a contagious illness.
All you need for rationale is switching from the idea that someone makes bad choices to the idea that someone is a bad machine.
Would you "punish" your computer for crashing? Seems absurd. Presumably we don't want to engage in absurdities and irrational behavior. We want to do what is "right", for various conceptions of right. So getting clear on whether we have moral responsibility is important to getting things right.
I might punish my computer by replacing it because it crashes. I might punish it with a hammer after because it is cathartic. None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter.
Free will is independent of moral responsibility. you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices"
>None of that relies on the computer having choice in the matter.
Most normally functioning people would not feel the need to punish a tool for being a bad tool. Some may find catharsis in damaging some object that has frustrated them, but usually they later recognize the absurdity of their outburst. The point is that we all generally recognize that there are legitimate and illegitimate targets for "punishment". The question is whether people are actually legitimate targets for punishment despite our intuitions on the matter.
>you can hold someone guilty of "being bad" just as easily as making "bad choices"
Sure you can; nothing is going to stop you from smashing your PC to bits next time it crashes. The issue is whether it is the all things considered correct choice.
I think I make the point more clearly here [1], but the question of legitimate targets and if it is "correct" to damage my computer does not turn on it having on free will or not. There are questions of if it is satisfying. If it is a bad habit that could become maladaptive.
Nobody can seem to articulate how free will is central to the "legitimate target" question.
You dont need free will to rationally have disgust, indignation, and retribution. You can rationally punish someone who contracted a contagious illness.
All you need for rationale is switching from the idea that someone makes bad choices to the idea that someone is a bad machine.