In order to choose (say yes, affirm, accept), you have to let go and push away (say no, deny, refuse).
That means you either a) can’t want everything, or b) can’t get everything. If you know neither a nor b, you will never be able to know choice/freedom…even though/if you have the capacity.
(For everyone except Ecmandu/PG.)
“Choose” is a word.
We say that word when we make a choice.
“Choice” is when you make a decision.
“Decision” is just a word.
When something is selected, it is made by a decision.
Selection means that you have a will of some sort.
Animals have wills, too.
But people say, animals don’t have free will.
This is an error.
Free will is imperfect.
It does not get dealt with, well.
Free-Will isn’t inherently wrong,
it’s a matter of mal-practice.
Will, must be understood, and explained with successful language,
before “Free-Will” has any hope of being accurate.
Will is just part of life.
It’s a form of effort.
“Effort” is just a word.
Imagine if we called it “free effort”?
Would that make more sense?
We can build a whole society on the grounds with error.
Why would punishment hinge on free will?
Punishing someone makes them less free,
not more free.
Agency = sin?
Where are these people getting this shit from?
I think it is much more accurate to say something like : “Disease = sin”.
Some people break the law for money.
It’s not that they were free or not free,
it is that they saw an opportunity,
and if they were in dispair, they would
resort to harmful acts of theft or violence.
Violence exists and can exist without free will.
Animals have violence, even though the crew
say that animals dont have free well.
So that screws that argument.
When people have what they need,
they change their behavior,
drastically.
I wish Faust was still here.
He can explain shit.
Isn’t it funny how sometimes difficult it is to define things without just using synonyms? 
Be back in a bit.
There are probably experiments testing whether or not animals can make a moral (free, self=other) choice. As Sculptor showed, some animals can infer:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2902687
Can they infer the moral choice in a dilemma? This is different from empathy, which is not a choice. You can choose to (or be traumatized to) listen to (perhaps hyper-vigilantly) or ignore (become desensitized to) empathy, but bare empathy is not a choice—it is innate. For some it lies dormant until unlocked in the right environment.
Are there moral dilemmas a dog would a) understand as such, and b) ignore natural impulses (you mentioned meeting “needs”) like empathy or hunger in order to … obey self=other? Humans can ignore empathy (mother love) in order not to spoil their children, for example. Such humans are more rewarded by freeing according to self=other. It is a higher (or deeper) need for them, governing/ordering all their other needs. Can nonhuman inferencers have deeper/higher reward systems?
We know dogs can ignore impulse because they can be trained to do that (because they can learn). How many videos have you seen of someone placing a treat on a dog’s nose, and the dog (because trained to delay gratification) just sits there until prompted? The training usually involves reward and not punishment. The well-behaved pet usually trusts the trainer. The trainer is usually mostly worthy of that trust—dogs do sometimes turn against a bad trainer who uses undue punishment for behaviors they themselves reenforce. We don’t blame dogs for bad behavior — we blame bad trainers. Certain breeds attract bad trainers more than others, but we don’t blame dogs for what comes naturally, or for what is encouraged by bad trainers. There is a reason we hold adult humans more accountable than dogs or children (though we still protect others from them). What is the key difference? If any WILL can do that essential difference, they are “free” [even if they use their power of empathy to cheat people—this is where punishment MUST come in, and it is unloving of the cheater & those they cheat if there is no punishment/discipline of cheating—as far as they are aware of their intentionality…which is indicated by evidence of trying to obscure it, etc.—sometimes a cry for recognition, if they do so publicly—though often missed, because so few are that free/enslaved (imagine if they came into contact with someone who understands and sets them actually free, rather than exploiting/blackmailing—but definitely stops them in their tracks…even if it takes psychological violence to get their attention)]. If they can’t do it, they are not accountable or responsible, but should be treated as someone with the potential to become free at least until we know what flips the switch from unfree will (off) to free will (on). After the switch is flipped on, (moral) awareness is a matter of degrees. For the one who is always on (no switch—no beginning/end—subsuming time) it is omniscience. We cannot reach that level — it reaches/unlocks us. (We love because we are first loved.)
But… do, say, wild, undomesticated animals show self=other impulse control (written on their hearts)? How could we test that without accidentally domesticating them? Is it innate (nature) or learned (they domesticate themselves to each other)?
How did… domesticating… first arise?