Is that really a necessary conclusion though? Responsibility, guilt, justification are not ontological categories but ultimately human judgements. Free will is not logically necessary for these categories to function, it's just how they're mostly used. — Echarmion

You are right in saying free will is not necessary for these categories to function. however, if you were to say, murder someone and free will doesn't exist then what are those categories even for?

Responsibility - That person isn't responsible for that murder, they didn't freely choose to kill that person, it was always going to happen. People would be just be charged for manslaughter at most.

Guilt - Why would you feel guilty if you believe there is no free will? It isn't your fault that happened it was always going to happen,

Justification - The justification would be that there is no free will, so this one can remain as normal.

I think we all subscribe to our way of life, we understand that if we do something bad we get imprisoned or fined and we choose not to do that due to the consequences, (or you just don't want to do it). In my opinion that is free will. If you were a victim to an attack you would want that person to be jailed or have some justice, but if there is no free will you would have to forgive that person and be angry at the stars,

"Freedom" needs a definition. It's not something which can simply be measured empirically. That definition needs to account for reasons, for a decision without reasons is contradictory. Freedom should be distinguishable from randomness. If that's the case, then it would seem that freedom must refer to a specific kind of reasons — Echarmion

I agree that freedom needs a definition, and was going to include that in my original post however, I didn't want it to be too long.

I agree that it needs to account for reasons also. However, just because there is reasoning behind actions doesn't mean there is no free will.

"freedom should be distinguishable from randomness" is interesting... In my eyes randomness is caused by freedom. The reason you can't know exactly what is going to happen when you wake up in the morning is the fact there is so many millions of factors in your day that literally anything could happen. Every day is randomised by the freedom of everything.

I believe we have free will when it comes to our decisions, and if you don't you are opening up to arguing that if people do not have free will, then everyone is not responsible for their actions, which we are. Obviously there are factors, and I wouldn't disagree that the environment you are brought up in/ are in, affects how you would approach certain decisions along with many other factors such as:

Health, (both mental and physical)
financials,
personality,
morals,
religion,
family,

You could use these factors and the data that comes along with it to predict what certain people may or may not do in a situation however, if you get it right it doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, or your a god, it just means you have predicted and analysed the situation correctly.

My main issue with the argument of no free will would be the fact that if you believed in that you would have to argue that murderers and other heinous crimes are justified because the perpetrator simply had no choice, he HAD to kill those people, its not his fault.

Throughout writing this, I have argued to myself that you could punch someone in the face at any point in the day if you wanted to, but you don't because you don't want to. Maybe that's because you aren't aggressive or you are scared of the repercussions, it could be anything, but maybe that "not wanting" to do something even though you could do it at any point, takes away part of that free will. But even then with that thought it would still argue that free will is real, it just gets hindered.