vfd - I wish you first research the accuracy of my claims and then claim that they are not based on scientific information

As you read what I write below, please keep this in mind, you did ask for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You might notice, that 2 of the sources you presented didn't support your claim. Worse still the other source (gizmodo) explicitly contradicted your claim:

vfd - Now I'm saying that nearly all scientist and neurologists are virtually unanimous in the belief that there is no free will and they have scientifically proven that statement.

gizmodo -
It may be a while before we can truly prove that free will is an illusion.

---------------------------
You might notice the source I provided also explicitly contradicts your claim.

To our surprise, 79 percent of the [responding eminent biologists] chose option A for this question, indicating their belief that people have free will... Only 14 percent chose no free will...

---------------------------
You might notice the source I provided is peer reviewed while the 3 you provided are not (which ultimately doesn't matter much since the 3 you provided don't substantiate your claim anyway).
---------------------------
---------------------------
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of freewill. What I'm saying is the verdict is still out. I'd personally argue that the case hasn't even begun, since (as far as I can tell) we don't yet have a clear definition of freewill that is testable. Because in the current state of affairs, it is easy for one person to say freewill doesn't exist, and for another to say it does, yet not be in contradiction because freewill does not mean the same thing to each person. So until we have that meaningful definition, everything said on the matter is speculation, at best.

Thanks for the well considered follow up. I think we move closer to the crux of the matter as we clarify our terms, and your clarification of the question as "if this person can be moral or immoral" is helpful indeed. I'm not sure I agree that a person can "be" moral or immoral, for if morality is "the good" then one can be in a state of greater or lesser morality, but one cannot be said to be "the good" itself. But Kant argued duty was necessary because one's motives exert some qualitative influence on the morality of our actions. One gets no credit for doing "good" in Kant's view if one is motivated to do good by the reward it brings oneself. Thus rule following is necessary to establish any kind of shared morality, and one's personal moral quality might be defined as the distance between one's desire and the rule one chooses to follow instead. So Kant needs an objective moral standard, and - like you - he settled on the concept of "god" to do it.

Kant didn't believe even god could be objective, however, unavailable as it is to our senses. So he argued that religion serves this purpose, and in so doing committed himself to the very error he tried to correct. It is perhaps forgivable for one so sublimely intelligent as Kant to make this mistake in an age in which Christianity was nearly universal to any extent he might travel, but the sheer number of religions and gods makes this approach as doomed to subjectivity as the subjective motivations themselves.

Perhaps Kant's dedication to pure reason blinded him to something rather more fundamentally objective than the absolute. 18th century Europeans were only just beginning to conceive of the body as a material and mechanical, rather than a spiritual and inspired organism. If he had considered this, I'm confident he would've been drawn to the fact that far more objective than religious claims is the hunger one feels when one hasn't eaten in too long, or the pain of exposure, and even of isolation. As this is true for all humans, of all religions, in all places, here we find an objective source for morality which can truly meet the needs he set out for deontology..

So enters your concern about free will: if we are truly materialistic, mechanistic beings then aren't our motivations simply determined? I don't actually propose answers for the question of free will and determination, only more questions. In this case I question the connection Kant tried to establish between morality and motives. If badly motivated but incompetent criminal intends harm but somehow benefits his victim instead, can the act be said to be immoral? Who shall judge the motivations of such a one anyway? There is no god on earth but only those who claim one as our deity, and they are all too willing to judge on their god's behalf. Consider the alternate, if a morally motivated individual seeks perfect morality according to an immoral rule, his actions will result in immorality despite his intentions.

I think these problems overwhelm any basis for deontology that one can invent for morality. Because motives cannot be known, and because they are subjective in the first place, no absolute moral standard can be devised, and because of this no set of rules can be known to be moral on this basis, and thus adherence to the rules cannot certify moral quality.

Note that I don't argue man is qualitatively moral or immoral, though he may be. I don't argue that motives are morally unimportant, though they might be. Nor even do I argue that only the result counts - the ends may or may not justify the means. My argument is that "the good" has a basis in biology, in nature, and as such is objectively true. We can fairly say that torture, murder, imprisonment, starvation, overwork, and deprivation are immoral for the human animal. These things are not good. We therefore have no need of a goddess to call Hitler the immoral monster he was, or any other murderer.

So to your example I say the only moral course of action is to save the dying man, and if he is to be the progenitor of Hitler it has no necessary moral connection to the savior. The more challenging scenario of course is if the savior specifically knows what will come of Hitler, but this leads to a quantitative model of morality that I should perhaps save for later.

Interesting conversation, vfd - thanks for hosting it!