Freedom. Blame. Resentment. This sounds like a story of my early life and first marriage. We both treasured our freedom---blamed one another for not having a better understanding of expectations upon wedding, and resented the outcome when we split up after a mere one and one-half years of matrimonial hell. But, it was a confusing time---1970 was not the best time to make a life commitment---as if any time ever is. In any case, when we finally split, we never spoke again. Better that, I guess, than suffering through twenty years and one or more children. She lives (if she still does) in Canada. I live in the USA.
We are free of one another . I doubt that she blames me any more than I blame her (though she was the unfaithful one). I resent little about our short, torrid, relationship, other than the short, amoral, self -absorbed man who took advantage of a boss-employee relationship to cheat on his own wife by screwing mine.

A Resolution
When One finds the flaw of mankind is his uncertain measure of nature,
And removes it from One's life,
Blame and resentment are removed too,
And One becomes true.
Life without measure is
Equal or free
As is One
As is All.
=

Freedom is equality,
It exist truly and absolutely in a place called the infinite Universe.
只要去掉测量的不确定性或缺陷，它就可以被发现、看到和存在。
Life with out measure is free.
Man is the measure of all things as an old Greek once said.
But it doesn't have to be.
Try it and see!
Justice, liberty, Oneness, Unity, Truth, is right here, right now,
And best of All, its free.
=
MJA

I still hope to find to engage with this in detail. In the meantime I want to address the question of whether we are "naturally programmed to feel resentment." The evolutionary psychology I use in my recent book Becoming Achilles suggests perhaps so, but martial cultures can ratchet up that propensity to produce fierce warriors like Achilles, whom his friend Patroklos calls a dangerous man, who is liable to blame even one who is not responsible (aitios) for wrongdoing. .

Having read (part of) the set-up for this thread I'm feeling not a little resentful at some remarks I once endured about my typos! Righteous indignation is all too easily deflected as resentment. The term is preloaded with pernicious, and usually malicious, intent, especially when used philosophically, and always when used politically. And as for compatiblism, what a fraud that is! Time is no more compatible with determinism than is freedom. 'If..., then' is a logical cul-de-sac. If there is any if about it there ain't no if about it, and if there ain't no if about it it's all pretty iffy! It's mug's game! The concept of the subjunctive, logic in any real sense, militates against determinism as a hermetic limit to time and act.

Well put! I'd like to put forward the idea that the mainstream connection between freedom and moral culpability is a useless one in our daily lives. I think the traditional problem of free will is invoked in two general situations: (1) decision-making and (2) justice.
In the first case, I think it would be salient to remember Sartre's famous story of the young Frenchman trying to decide whether he should join the French war-effort to avenge his brother's death and leave behind his mother who wants her son to be around to take care of her, or stay at home to take care of his mother and leave his brother unavenged. I think it would be rather amusing if someone were to come to this Frenchman and tell him that the traditional problem of free will has been resolved. To understand the irrelevance of this metaphysical discovery, we can analyze the two different possible conclusions. Case 1: we are truly free, and so the Frenchman is free and has complete responsibility over his decision. Okay, he still feels the weight of responsibility and indecision. In addition, he still feels some fear of future blame (self-blame if he makes the wrong decision or blame coming from his mother). Case 2: we are determined, and so our sense of freedom is but an illusion. However, we still retain this sense of freedom and hence responsibility. After this, Case 2 is equivalent to Case 1. Therefore, we see that however the debate on free will and determinism turns out, the Frenchman is helpless in his decision-making process. Metaphysics is not relevant in making your life choices (at least in this sense).
In the second case of Justice, we often hear of the case of the criminal trying to absolve himself of guilt by pleading psychological problems or something of the sort. I am inclined to argue that, just as it was with the Frenchman, this retroactive invocation of the problem of free will is also entirely irrelevant to our daily conception of justice and punishment. Similarly, lets speak in terms of two cases. Case 1: the criminal was free and "could have done otherwise". However, does this immediately imply that he should be punished either by imprisonment or capital punishment? I am inclined to say no. On my own non-metaphysical grounds, I think a deeper analysis of the assumptions underlying our intuitive support of imprisonment and capital punishment is necessary, and I think rehabilitation is the better alternative, although it can admittedly be improved on. Case 2: the criminal was determined and could not have acted otherwise. Okay, now most of us would agree that we should not morally condemn or punish someone who did something that he was not in control of. This is the condition of control, which can be found at least as early as Kant, if not in our common sense far before Kant. So it seems that imprisonment or capital punishment is unreasonable and psychological rehabilitation would be the more reasonable option. Here again we end up with the conclusion of rehabilitation. The problem is that rehabilitation is not as developed as it could be, especially since we currently do not think of criminals as people that need help more than harsh punishment. Thus, it seems that our very assertion on the connection between our mainstream understanding of freedom and responsibility is misleading us to the wrong societal conclusions. Not only is it bad metaphysics, it's bad assumptions leading to a bad application of philosophy.