This doesn’t seem like a logical argument to me. It seems like you’re just saying humans tend to believe we have free will, and our society is based upon that assumption.

I’m arguing that the assumption is incorrect.

Where would we draw the line between free will and compulsion? It has to be arbitrary, just like you noted about a robot’s desires. An automaton desires nothing other than following its programming, so anything a robot does successfully would be an exercise of free will. But I don’t think anybody would actually argue that, they’d argue it’s an exercise of the programmer’s free will. Why is it different for us just because our programming isn’t apparent?

>I’d say, you can adapt.

Sure, but what about a machine that can alter its own programming? If it’s not acting with free will when it adapts, then those adaptations aren’t free will.

>And also consider non-measurable phenomena like other peoples feelings or reactions.

They may not be measurable, but they can be observed and estimated. That’s how you do it, after all.

>You can prioritize.

This one machines are already great at. Probably better than us. The amount of prioritization that happens every microsecond in order to make modern computers run would fry our brains.

>Such decisions would require a ton of code engineering to implement.

Sure, and that’s my argument. We’re just extremely complex machines, so the reasoning is obfuscated to the point that it gives the illusion of free will. But if we could actually analyze our minds and thought mechanisms I don’t see why it would be any different from a computer program, and I don’t see where there’s room for free will.

Legality doesn’t imply truth.

Let’s compare two scenarios: in one you program a robot to kill someone, in the other you program a robot to cut people’s hair but it has a horrible malfunction and kills someone. In which of those is scenarios is the robot exercising free will?

If you agree that humans are essentially no different from robots, then it follows that we can’t have free will regardless of what any court or law says.

But what’s free about that? What’s the difference between you acting on your desires and a robot acting on its programming?

I think another huge difference is that most human death isn’t preventable. It either happens suddenly, or medical care just can’t fix it.

With pets it’s rare to actually explore all the treatment options, because who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a coin flip treatment that will at best add a couple years? And would that even be in the pet’s best interest?

With humans those generally aren’t things you have to worry about. With your pet, you have to make those decisions for them.

A specific general or just generals in general?