Gregg D. Caruso

Gregg D. Caruso Speaking Topics

• Free Will

  How to live well without free will

  Most people not only believe in free will, but assume that if we didn’t have it, society would fall apart. They fear that life without free will would have dire consequences for our interpersonal relationships, society, morality, meaning, and the law. Gregg Caruso challenges these assumptions and argues that belief in free will, rather than being a good thing, actually has a dark side and we would be better off without it. He has developed an ethically defensible and practically workable account of how we can flourish and live well without belief in free will. He maintains that we should be optimistic about the practical implications of free will skepticism—the view that doubts or denies that agents have the kind of free will needed to make the harm of blame and punishment and the benefit of praise and reward deserved and fundamentally so. Since this view combines skepticism about free will with optimism about its practical implications, he calls his view "optimistic skepticism."

  The thesis of optimistic skepticism maintains that life without belief in free will may well improve our well-being and our relationships to others since it eradicates an often-destructive form of moral anger. It contends that prospects of finding meaning in life or of sustaining good interpersonal relationships would not be threatened. It also contends that meaningful forms of love, morality, creativity, and personal accomplishment could be preserved. And although retributivism and severe punishment would be ruled out, incapacitation and rehabilitation programs would still be justified. The view further maintains that there are many instances in which our desert-based moral responsibility practices are counterproductive from a practical and humanitarian standpoint—notably in how they stifle personal development, encourage punitive excess in criminal justice, and perpetuate social and economic inequalities. As a result, optimistic skepticism maintains that by abandoning belief in free will—and with it, the pernicious notion of just deserts—we can look more clearly at the causes and more deeply into the systems that shape individuals and their behavior, and this will allow us to adopt more humane and effective practices and policies.

• Stakeholder Capitalism

  For decades, the dominant business philosophy shaping corporate governance and business strategies has been the shareholder model, which prioritizes the interests of shareholders—those who own shares in a company. It maintains that a company’s primary responsibility is to maximize profits for its shareholders and investors. It operates within a free-market approach that acknowledges limited corporate social responsibilities beyond following the law. While the philosophy advanced by the shareholder model remains dominant in business, critics charge that it leads to short-term thinking, prioritizing profits over other important ethical concerns like employee welfare, environmental sustainability, consumer interests, and social responsibility. As an alternative, Gregg Caruso advances the principles of stakeholder capitalism, an economic model that prioritizes the well-being of all stakeholders—employees, customers, communities, suppliers, and shareholders. He makes the case that ethical considerations demand that we restructure business practices and markets so as to advance stakeholder interests. The stakeholder theory begins with the insight that every business decision affects a wide variety of people, benefiting some and imposing costs on others. Decisions made by business produce far-ranging consequences throughout society. Stakeholder capitalism maintains that the actions of corporations and their managers can and should be restricted by the rights of others.

Justice Without Retribution

Within the criminal justice system, one of the most prominent justifications for legal punishment is retributivism. The retributive justification of legal punishment maintains that wrongdoers are morally responsible for their actions and deserve to be punished in proportion to their wrongdoing. Gregg Caruso argues that retributive punishment is unjustified and offers a novel non-retributive and non-punitive alternative for addressing criminal behavior known as the public health-quarantine model. In stark contrast to retributivism, the public health-quarantine model provides a more human, holistic, and effective approach to dealing with criminal behavior.

Gregg Caruso's public health-quarantine model, introduced in his work on criminal justice reform, is a framework that justifies incapacitating seriously dangerous criminals on the right of self-defense and defense of others, similar to a public health approach to quarantine. The model, however, emphasizes the importance of rehabilitating offenders rather than merely punishing them, focusing on prevention and treatment for underlying causes of criminal behavior, such as mental health issues or addiction. The goal is to reduce harm to society while providing offenders the opportunity for reintegration, in a way that balances safety with compassion. The model seeks to address systemic issues, ensuring that those who are incarcerated or quarantined are given proper support and rehabilitation programs, improving both public safety and individual well-being.