Free Will, page-88

That's of course the $64,000 question.

This is a very deep rabbit hole. The concept of Free Will in the sense that is being debated here, is one that has religious connotations.

God needing to validate sending somebody to heaven or hell firstly had to give them the right of free agency when choosing between good and evil, right or wrong, or the least wrong in a difficult situation. This then made God just, because humans, by their actions, would have delivered themselves to their fate. Free Will therefore has moral, religious overtones, whereby the individual is demonstrating their faith and devotion to God, obedience to the Prophet and fulfilling the ordinances of Scripture against the desires of the self.

The basis of Free Will is a belief in God and choices and behaviour tempered by that belief. Behaviour concomitant with the moral codes of Scriptural belief. It would, in a black and white world, be the application of the, 10 Commandments, beyond this in the predominating grey areas of life are choices that moral life experience it is hoped, will assist in the exercise of a positive use of Free Will.

Now of course morality exists outside religious belief and if any of this is real, then choices have the same consequences both in and out of belief, although I imagine a religious authority frigging around with a child is a whole, red button flashing category of, you're gonna' burn in hell. Politicians and police officers via a gross abnegation of their oath to office would also, one expects, have a massive void in the spirits.

As such choices here are called choices, not Free Will, but the point remains, in moral decisions humans have an element of free agency and this tiny amount of free agency is the measure of a human.