Again the dichotomy: we do or we do not have free will. 

If we do, then that poses some problems... some I will discuss later.

If we don't, then that poses some problems again.

Oh, how I love to find problems.

(Please see chapter Dichotomies)

----------

Edit: 31st Jan 2021

I have come to the temporary conclusion that we don't have free will. 

We exist within boundaries because it is a kindness to be shackled. 

We cannot know darkness without a taste of light. We cannot know our power without knowing our limits. We cannot know without not knowing. 

Our freedom is like pocket money. We use it sparingly because absolute fulfilment of our every desire is to squander our potential. The harder the struggle, the sweeter the reward. 

One may argue we have free will because everything is permitted. That is not to say there are no consequences, however, we do possess the ability to reign freely. But perhaps only a free trial. Inevitably death claims us. Thus I argue that we are not free from this mortal coil.

----------

Edit: 24th Feb 2021

I have come to the temporary conclusion that we do have a free will. 

Free will is the ability to choose whether to sink or swim, float or dive, resist or go with the flow of fate. Free will is the ability to do whatever one wishes within the river that ends in the waterfall of death. If one is (un)fortunate, the river may flow into a tributary or vice versa.

It could be argued that we are as free as a fish in the ocean. One may claim that the fish isn't free since it is imprisoned within a body of water that is the ocean, but if the fish had the freedom to leap out of the water and onto the land, it would inevitably die. Is being constrained therefore not a freedom from potential harm? Should a fish be given the freedom to suffocate itself?

But us humans are free to commit suicide are we not? We humans have the capacity to overcome our physical and mental limits? Are we then not free? I argue that we are. We are free to climb out of the ocean, free to blockage the river, free to make a mistake or successful breakthrough unbeknownst to us. Thus I argue that we are free. We are free from death, but that does not mean life is given freely. 

Life is a free trial; it is up to us to unlock the premium option (if we want). We have the choice to be Hyden or the Clam; the choice to take the easy way or the way that has yet to be fully carved. 

Our choices are what define our freedom.

Life is but a 'choose your own adventure' story.

----------

Edit: 26th Feb 2021

We don't have free will.

Kant argues that we act "under the idea of freedom" but are we totally free?

We are all programmed - see chapter Manipulation - but whether we are aware of this or not makes no difference in the end. If we are unaware, then we believe all our actions are our own. If we understand that we are programmed we then have the choice to go along with the programme or rebel against it - but then, is your rebellion your own choice or were you programmed to defy the programme? 

Second-guessing one's own 'freedom' will only lead to analysis paralysis and will eventually lead one nowhere. Thus, if we want to live (a possible desire derived from our programming), then we must act as if we were free. Perhaps this sounds fatalistic - our paths already predestined - and perhaps it is, but whether or not our freedom is a sham ultimately makes no difference. After all, as Shakespeare aptly put: "to be, or not to be, that is the question". We can either accept our fate joyously or rebel which ultimately circles into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Our freedom is therefore the option to choose the fork in the road, yet knowing that in the end, all roads lead to Rome.

For further reading, please see:

Christine Korsgaard's "Creating the Kingdom of Ends", chapter Morality as freedom, pages 162-163

----------

Edit: 5th Mar 2021

Although we don't have free will, that does not remove the value of our choices. Just because we are told we have been preprogrammed in advance does not mean that we know what we will do. Along the lines of the unexpected hanging paradox, we are unable to predict our own actions even if we know that they are already set in the future. Life is hence a dot to dot picture given to a blind person that somehow manages to line everything out perfectly unbeknownst to themselves in the process.

----------

Edit: 7th May 2021

Does free will even matter?

If you go about your life believing you made your own decisions, is the illusion of free will not as appropriate as real free will?

Would it not be better to mistakenly believe that you made all your own choices, when in fact the ideas were seeded into your mind subconsciously and have been tricked into believing that someone else's idea is your own?

Free will is but an illusion, however, as long as the slave believes they are free, then everything is alright.

References:

Unconscious Branding: How Neuroscience Can Empower (and Inspire) Marketing – Douglas Van Praet 

Inception – Christopher Nolan

----------

Edit: 21st May 2021

A: Do we have free will?

B: Perhaps. On one hand, we are seemingly the masters of our own mind. People can force our actions, however, they can't force the way we think.

A: What about advertising? Doesn't subconscious influence shape the way we think?

B: That's true. Research shows that if we are constantly surrounded by repetitive advertisement, then we are more inclined to think about the thing being advertised. For example, if we are constantly surrounded by Coca Cola advertisement, then we are more likely to think about Coca Cola and ultimately may even purchase Coca Cola, however, if someone really hates Coca Cola, then no matter how much Coca Cola is advertised, that someone will almost never purchase Coca Cola.

A: But just because they don't purchase Coca Cola, that doesn't mean that someone won't think about it.

B: True. As Shakespeare once said: "Love me or hate me, both are in my favor. For if you love me I will always be in your heart; if you hate me I will always be in your mind."

A: So, essentially, what we think about isn't really up to us but is dependent on our surrounding. Isn't that determinism? Does that mean we don't actually have control over our own thoughts?

B: Yes, that is determinism, but if we aren't influenced by our surroundings then can we even think for ourselves? First being influenced is a prerequisite to having our own thoughts.

A: Does that mean ideas can't exist separately from influence?

B: That would be the general idea. After all, research shows that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance influences us before we are even born. Our genes are already preprogrammed to be biased towards certain foods, political parties and even fears.

A: It would therefore seem that influence controls our actions. What basis is there for having free will then?

B: Well, just because we are heavily influenced, that doesn't mean we have to go along with our instincts. We still have the choice to do what we want. Returning back to the Coca Cola example, just because the idea of Coca Cola might be stuck in our head, that doesn't mean we have to allow the idea to influence us. As long as we are conscious of its influence, we can actively try to ignore it. In that sense, a person who grows up in a violent neighborhood doesn't have to be violent as well. Just as Kant said, we must "act under the idea of freedom". We can choose to act on a desire, but insofar as we take the act to be ours, then the idea has been made freely.

A: Ah, I see. But what if we were programmed into thinking we have free will? To make it vivid, imagine that you are participating in a scientific experiment, and you know that today your every move is programmed by an electronic device implanted in your brain. The device is not going to bypass your thought process, however, and make you move mechanically, but rather to work through them: it will determine what you think. Perhaps you get up and decide to spend the morning working. You no sooner make the decision than it occurs to you that

It must have been programmed. We may imagine that in a spirit of rebellion you then decide to skip work and go shopping. And then it occurs to you that that must have been programmed.

B: What you're trying to say is that regardless of what actions we take, none of them have been made using free will?

A: Yes. If we allow our will to be influenced then we don't have free will. If we choose to not accept the influence, then that has been influenced by the spirit of rebellion.

B: But that's all a hypothetical, isn't it? As we mentioned above, we cannot escape influence, but that doesn't mean our choices are not our own. For example, one of the key arguments against free will is being a slave to our bodies. This means that we don't actually have the choice when it comes to bodily functions such as sleeping. While it is true that I can't escape sleeping, I have the choice of if I want to sleep. I might want to stay awake, and that is my free will, but my body will force me to sleep when I get too tired.

A: That actually isn't true. Research shows that when the body gets very tired, hormones are released which makes you want to sleep. Your free will is essentially hijacked by chemicals in your body and you become a backseat driver. Emotions are also a large driving factor when it comes to free will, that's why after an emotional outburst, we often regret what we did because we feel in control of our free will again.

B: Our you saying that our body only loans our free will to us?

A: Yes, that's correct. As long as the body is satisfied, we are given control of how we think. Essentially, we aren't always in control of our actions because we aren't always in control of our minds and free will.

B: You make it sound like our minds are separate from our bodies. That's just dualism proposed by Aristotle. But if our minds are separate from our bodies, then doesn't our mind always have free will?

A: That would be a good hypothesis, however, can our mind exist separate from our body?

B: I'm not sure, but it sounds a lot like the Ship of Theseus or My Grandfather's Axe. Our bodies are always changing and compared to who we were when we were a child, we seem to be a completely different person, but the mind must be a constant, right?

A: Whether or not our mind is a constant is often addressed using the Persistence Question. There seems to be a sense of continuity throughout our lives, but its true that we also seem to be different people. Our choices change based on influence, so again, does that mean we don't have free will?

----------

Conclusion

1. We don't have free will

2. We are programmed - all our (non/anti-) decisions have already been foreseen

3. Our freedom lies in the extent to choose an option within a range of choices

4. No matter what our choices are, they eventually all conjoin in the end

5. The important thing is our attitude, either find joy in our fate or suffer