Without free will, our behaviour would be no different from any other natural phenomenon, Sam Harris and other determinists claim: https://imgur.com/bIrWOJI
“Compare the response to Hurricane Katrina,” Harris suggested, with “the response to the 9/11 act of terrorism.” For many Americans, the men who hijacked those planes are the embodiment of criminals who freely choose to do evil. But if we give up our notion of free will, then their behavior must be viewed like any other natural phenomenon—and this, Harris believes, would make us much more rational in our response
Although the scale of the two catastrophes was similar, the reactions were wildly different. Nobody was striving to exact revenge on tropical storms or declare a War on Weather, so responses to Katrina could simply focus on rebuilding and preventing future disasters. The response to 9/11, Harris argues, was clouded by outrage and the desire for vengeance, and has led to the unnecessary loss of countless more lives. Harris is not saying that we shouldn’t have reacted at all to 9/11, only that a coolheaded response would have looked very different and likely been much less wasteful. “Hatred is toxic,” he told me, “and can destabilize individual lives and whole societies. Losing belief in free will undercuts the rationale for ever hating anyone”
Determinists tend to decry hatred and retribution from my experience. "Love is okay! Hatred is not okay!" they stomp their feet. And if hating and waging wars on the weather were "irrational" or "unjustified", how would hating and waging wars on criminals be "rational" or "justified"?
Are there philosophers that defend hatred and retribution even if "free will" didn't exist? And how would they defend hatred and retribution?