What Free Will Is Not

Clarifying what a concept is and clarifying what it is not focus on different aspects of the same truths, but they are still distinct enough to both be called for in some cases.  Controversy is often accompanied by misunderstanding, and thus controversial ideas often need to be addressed in a way that does not leave out vital details about what something is and is not.  Every idea cam be controversial.  There is nothing that stupidity and emotionalism cannot poison in the arbitrary perceptions of the public.  Some ideas are still more foundational or controversial than others, with the existence of free will being one example of a philosophical issue that is widely misrepresented.

Any person can know with absolute certainty that they have free will through reflecting on logic and introspection, but I have established this previous in multiple cases (here is one such case [1]), and anyone can know that the concept of free will could be misunderstood to describe absolute freedom, or the ability to do anything at all that one wishes.  However, this is demonstrably false.  For example, no one could choose to both exist and not exist at the same time or to render sound logical deductions invalid even if they sincerely wished for such things to happen, nor could a human choose to be free of gravity on a mere whim.  To have freedom of the will is not freedom from the metaphysical presence of logic or even from the contingent laws of nature.

Free will does not mean that someone can do whatever they want, for they can never do that which is logically impossible by its very nature, and they will also be subject to whatever additional limitations are brought by scientific laws.  Nevertheless, it does mean a person is free to wish to do anything at all, no matter how impossible, stupid, or immoral it is.  It still does not follow that they can do or should do any specific thing they wish, but it does mean that no other person or natural force can wholly control their will in an ultimate sense.

Free will is nothing other than autonomy of choice, a thing necessary for intellectual autonomy and moral responsibility (though proving that one has free will does not prove moral obligations exist, one cannot be morally responsible for any thought or deed apart from the ability to choose at least some thoughts and actions).  It is not a control of one's circumstances or core metaphysical nature; it is what allows a person to decide how to live in light of their circumstances and metaphysical nature.  Free will can be used to react to certain variables in a self-guided manner when when there is no way to change them.

That external objects, events, and beings have no way to completely control a being with free will is all that free will automatically entails.  If anyone arguing against free will (which is fallacious by default due to the non sequiturs that must be used) thinks that an inability to do all things is the same thing as the absence of free will, they are too unintelligent to understand the difference between the ability to make autonomous choices and absolute control over all of reality--something not even a deity could have, as logic is inviolable no matter what a being of any kind wills.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html