ethics without free will

[bjs]

Let us assume for this thread that free will is an illusion.

Do ethics have any meaning without free will?

If we are not morally free then do words like “good� and “evil� have any substance?

[Cathar1950]

We are not the only creatures on earth that have empathy. But you do raise some interesting notions.
I was reading that we didn't sacrifice animals when we were hunter-gatherers and it wasn't until we domesticated animals that we began sacrificing them for various reasons and rituals. Animal sacrifice doesn't seem to have replaced human sacrifice as human sacrifices came later and were seen as more valuable.

Social animals have bonds and share sympathies.

Good and evil are value judgments about events and consequences. We all seem to desire the good and dislike what is conceived or felt as evil.
Good seems to be more like what works, fits its purpose, meets a need , produces satisfactions, beauty, order, is reasonable and does what it is suppose to do while evil would be what doesn't work, what doesn't fit in, defeats or lacks purpose, is unreasonable, ugly, meaningless, causes suffering and on and on, but the point is they are values we place upon the results of responses, acts experiences and events. They are our feed back.
We don't have some kind of free will as much as we have a range of responses which are subject to feedback systems.
If it were not that the universe was determined our feed back and response systems would have no meaning or use. But fortunately eventually natural selection will let even the seemly worse fit just because the species survives accidentally and related to the past and present conditions.
Dynamic determined systems need feed back and good and evil are values in judging the feed back.
I was reading today that our longer childhood not only helps us live longer but also more complex social and cultural meanings which the longer childhood gives us.

Free will looks more like feed back systems and responses.

I agree and I do know that other animals can be empathatiec, I was just using humans as the prime example as they control the groups that are both for and against the unequal treatment of animals. Regarding the more common claims of good and evil, they are generally attributed to different societies and different timeframes. Ritual human sacrifice with the Aztecs was seen as moral as the action was believed to rise the sun for the day or something of the sort. The action was one of utmost importance and was preobably one of the most moral things one could do (according to the culture). We on the whole view it as archaic, stupid and pretty dman evil. Imagine 2,000 years from now. The future people will say the same of us and war (presuming world peace... lol) ignoring the incredibly unlikely chances of world peace we can't be sure what of this age will be looked down upon as stupid archaic and evil. Morality is in the eye of the beholder and unless you invoke some kind of objective ruler then moral relativism is really the only realistic position to hold.

Or 3000 years from now when they look at the pieces and see Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child and God sacrificed his child so we should sacrifice our children and like it and enjoy it with a pure heart as God desires.