Not particularly, in my view. When a thermostat doesn't work, who or what is at fault? If it is because the environment acted upon it outside the parameters that the thermostat was designed for, one could say the environment was at fault. If it is because the thermostat didn't act as it was otherwise intended to act, then the fault/responsibility lies with the thermostat. The thermostat could plead innocent and claim that it was only doing what the universe had predetermined it to do, but that doesn't alter the fact that it didn't work as it was expected to do by others. Responsibility in that case thus lies with that thermostat and not the environment. This really isn't any different to the way we would consider moral responsibility in the presence of a non-trivial freedom of will. It possibly pushes a change of agenda away from punishment to one of rectifying the perceived issue; remedial rather than judgemental etc. It is no different than, say, Windows identifying an issue in degraded software and correcting it (albeit without any user input to confirm). Unless one is advocating Windows to have a non-genuine freedom in the way it can act? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So I don't see how moral responsibility is threatened just because one lacks a non-trivial freedom within the will. Yes, it's more complex an issue than exampled above, but i think the above illustrates the basics reasonably well. And people jumping to conclusions based on fear and ignorance of the position, without waiting to actually hear from those who might hold the position, certainly don't help matters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!