From the perspective of the punished, it may be unpleasant, unwanted. But as a society, we should never take action against someone with the aim of inflicting those feelings. They may be a side effect of whatever method is required, but never should it be the goal to do more harm. Even if someone thinks it is deserved.

Because it is never deserved. Because we're all here unwillingly. Because under determinism, even the worst murderers and tyrants didn't choose to be pitiful, terrible creatures that will never know our happiness. In a sense, they are the lowest of us, and even if all we're capable of giving them is pity, then we should still give.

Ok, I should clarify that I mean punishment in a vindictive manner. I see it as separate from results-based methods of handling criminals. We should lock someone up until we think they're not going to hurt anyone again, and no longer. As opposed to locking someone up forever because they hurt someone in the past, or executing them for it. Pragmatism or punishment is a matter of intent.

I'd say punishment, as I meant it, arises from a combination of intent and results.

Speeding tickets? Are intended to keep roadways safer, and are effective at deterring speeding. Not a punishment.

Now look at the death penalty. It's not really deterring people from murder more than a life sentence. In America, it's wasteful. Based on those two points and the death penalty's continued usage, I can infer that there is vindictive intent propping it up. That is a punishment.

What problem? What shallowness? You have described reality. The criminal's fate was to do harm and be harmed. They are helpless. They are to be both pitied and guarded against, but not hated. Not punished further for the poor hand they were dealt.

I, too, am a puppet, using the language of puppets, referring to other puppets as they wish to be referred to, because otherwise they would be hurt.

Besides that, I don't really understand what you're saying.

>Here's the problem - this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions, as mentioned in the interview, and operating according to this assumption is detrimental to both individuals and society.

It is not wholly detrimental. It grants us the liberating power to forgive anyone, for anything. Why hate anyone for their actions, when they are just an automaton, like I am? And you do not need hatred to take pragmatic actions, to protect yourself from bad people.

There already are serious moral dilemmas with punishing criminals. Meaning that lack of free will is just another reason to not punish them.

We always should have been jailing, rehabilitating, or otherwise handling criminals solely for the protection of others. That belief is not in conflict with lack of free will's moral implications.