Free-will is a confused concept.

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

The definition of free-will as ‘being able to choose between right and wrong’ is, I believe, a mistake. No person can choose between right and wrong, they simply must judge between the possibilities which are apparent to them, and whichever to them seems to fit their own definition of ‘right’ is the one that they choose. Therefore, a man may rape someone, but he has not chosen to do ‘wrong’, rather his understanding of right was ‘what is most beneficial to me’, not ‘what is most beneficial to everyone involved’.
What I mean is that free-will is not ‘freedom to choose between right and wrong’, but ‘freedom from objectivity’, in that a man does not do evil not for evil’s sake, but because he has judged that it is the good. To knowingly choose between right and wrong, one would have to know exactly what these were. Humans do not.
Therefore, free-will is not being free to do right and wrong, but being free from knowing the objective right and wrong. Free-will, then, is subjectivity.
According to this definition, free-will is inevitable to any creature which is not absolutely objective and all-knowing. The religious question of why God gave man free-will is a bit foolish, it seems to me. Because if it were any other way, that is, if man were objective, then he would be God, and there would be no man. Therefore, man can only have free-will, otherwise he does not exist as man. God could only have created man with free-will, otherwise he would be creating himself.

This may be nonsense, but I was just thinking it over, and thought I may as well post it to see what other people think.

2

the morality issue of free will is explained by the belief that a rational agent or at least ultimately rational agent (god) would surely be moral ( :laughing: ). i have yet to conclude this for myself.

i deem morals to be sophisticated methods of preserving self comfort due to an evolution designed trait of “helping thy neighbor”. we feel bad when we are unmoral, so we are motivated to be moral. a consequence of this is more babies for all.

i agree in your definition of free will so far as free will should be defined as the limit of possible actions available, the illusory morals may or may not be considered.