In the past decades a 'growing chorus of scientists and philosophers' have been arguing that free will does not exist and that view has grave societal implications that could materialize when AI achieves a level of philosophical zombie (p-zombie).
One of the primary goals of the movement is to replace retributive justice with (pharmaceutical money funded) forensic psychiatry. It has been going on for decades and some prominent professors are all-in to make it a reality and psychiatry has made progress in all these years. For the pharmaceutical industry it concerns a trillion USD growth potential.
The foundation of the movement is an attack on free will by denouncing it as an unjustified belief.
debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso.
(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Could they be right?
By far the most unsettling implication of the case against free will, for most who encounter it, is what it seems to say about morality: that nobody, ever, truly deserves reward or punishment for what they do, because what they do is the result of blind deterministic forces (plus maybe a little quantum randomness). “For the free will sceptic,” writes Gregg Caruso in his new book Just Deserts (DebatingFreeWill.com), a collection of dialogues with his fellow philosopher Daniel Dennett, “it is never fair to treat anyone as morally responsible.” Were we to accept the full implications of that idea, the way we treat each other – and especially the way we treat criminals – might change beyond recognition.
For Caruso, who teaches philosophy at the State University of New York, what all this means is that retributive punishment – punishing a criminal because he deserves it, rather than to protect the public, or serve as a warning to others – can’t ever be justified.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
"The debate on free will vs. determinism has continued unabated for roughly 2500 years and seems to have become more prolific in the last ten years. (2023)
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sk ... free-will/
Rejecting Retributivism: Free Will, Punishment, and Criminal Justice
(2021) https://www.amazon.com/Rejecting-Retrib ... ks&sr=1-14
Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society: Challenging Retributive Justice.
Elizabeth Shaw, Derk Pereboom, and Gregg D. Caruso have compiled a volume that centralizes a question of great philosophical and practical importance -- what is the relationship between skeptical views about free will and criminal punishment? It provides an excellent new resource for anyone who finds some variety of free will skepticism appealing (or troubling), and thus feels a looming threat to retributive justification for our modern criminal justice system.
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/free-will-skep ... e-justice/
Book: Cambridge University Press, 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fr ... AF7E270760
I have spent several decades closely following the development of the movement in Dutch forensic psychiatry. My engagement in this field has been primarily through the critical blog Zielenknijper.com. Throughout this journey, I have maintained contact with numerous professors who have participated in trials as expert witnesses, often sharing their insights and critiques by email and on the blog.
My international connections include regular interactions with Jim Gottstein, the founder of PsychRights.org, and journalist Robert Whitaker during the time that he founded MadInAmerica.com. Although I once considered collaborating on an international platform with Whitaker, I ultimately decided to maintain my focus on the situation in the Netherlands after I failed to acquire psychiatry.com (my personal mantra is 'the best or nothing').
A short summary of my perspective is available in the following article about Dutch forensic psychiatry: https://en.zielenknijper.com/case-files/tbs/
The blog was closed in 2014 and I would later continue with an examination of eugenics on nature which in a sense is an extension of the core beliefs of the free will abolishment movement.
The idea of a p-zombie AI world might make it plausible that the free will abolishment movement will see its goals materialize.
When a p-zombie AI can perform wholly as a human does and can meet the ideal of those assigned with the vital task to control through laws. What argument would provide a human with a right to be divergent of a determined path?
What effect will a p-zombie AI have on the belief in free will or the social control systems that are based on that belief?