There are many many ways to slice up this problem but a common division of camps is

1. Free Will

2. Hard determinism

3. Soft determinism

Your comment is touching on a lot of the arguments between soft and hard determinism but hard determinism has really fallen out of favor recently due to (imo) a better comprehension of the definition of self.

Hard determinism relied on an understanding that the actor being “forced” into their actions lacked agency and thus any responsibility for their actions (which is a generally internally consistent statement - we don’t consider actors responsible for actions taken under duress for certain values of responsible and duress)… however, that comprehension relied on (imo from here on out) an acceptance that the actor that lived in the deterministic world and the actor we were passing judgement on were in some way distinct - in essence that we are something more than our role in existence. Again imo, that leans into some of the same difficulties most free will models have - that there is something able to effect existence that is itself unaffected (in some significant way) by existence. (I am skimping on why this is important. Feel free to ask me to expand on it)

It seems much more logical that everything in existence can be affected and affect everything else in existence and if that’s the case, much like a defective gear in a simple machine, we may judge an actor to be responsible for the outcomes they materialize.

So in response to your comment I’d stress that living in a deterministic world doesn’t necessarily divorce us from responsibility for our actions and understanding why can actually be quite empowering.