This chapter argues that rejecting belief in free will – far from being nihilistic or socially corrosive – can be morally transformative and psychologically liberating. While many fear that disbelief in free will would undermine personal responsibility, justice, and meaning, the author argues for a position he calls optimistic skepticism, which combines free will skepticism with a hopeful vision of human flourishing. This chapter outlines the case for skepticism about the kind of free will needed for basic desert moral responsibility – the idea that individuals fundamentally deserve blame or praise for their actions. Drawing on philosophy, psychology, and empirical evidence, the chapter critiques both libertarian and compatibilist accounts of free will and defends a position known as hard incompatibilism, which holds that we lack the control in action required for basic desert. The chapter also introduces the moral and practical implications of this view, arguing that abandoning the belief in free will enables more humane approaches to criminal justice, social inequality, and interpersonal relationships.