I'm not sure I follow. But in any event, I was thinking of "free will" and "moral responsibility" as definitionally connected (following a convention I picked up reading about the topic). That is, I'm morally responsible for my actions if I undertook them because of my free will. And my will is "free" in the relevant sense if I can be held morally responsible for my actions. But I'm not attached to the "responsibility" talk; everything in the above can just be reframed in "free will" terms.
Edit to add:
I've read more about compatibilism, including the comments on the original post, and I think it's all been quite helpful in enhancing my understanding. The post and comments here were particularly illuminating: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/04/30/why-do-we-need-free-will-compatibilism/.
I'm increasingly inclined to think that the terms "free will" and "moral responsibility" are not helpful words in getting at what I'm interested in.
What I'm really interested in is, similar to my 4th question in the original post, whether certain kinds of "reactive attitudes" (to borrow a term from P. Strawson), e.g. praise and blame, make any sense. And I think these and many other reactive attitudes really depend on the ability to do otherwise. But everyone agrees... (read 1717 more words →)
I believe Harris's view is that we are still justified in imprisoning people for consequentialist reasons, just not based on a "moral desert" theory.