Do you believe in free will?

[Angrboda]

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define "free will" in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism (in the same way that incompatibilists define "free will" such that it cannot). Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situation for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, courts of law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will under certain circumstances without bringing in metaphysics. Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept. Likewise, compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals. In contrast, the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of "metaphysically free will," which compatibilists claim has never been coherently defined.

This is a well developed area of philosophy and I would suggest that instead of posing ill formed and banal arguments that you actually do some reading. I would start with Daniel Dennett's excellent Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (it's a slender volume at 172 pages, but not necessarily an easy read; it's quite densely argued). I have read good reviews of The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, yet not having read it, am unsure how much is devoted to compatibilism (looking at the table of contents, 40 pp devoted to determinism, 54 pp to incompatibilism, and 100 pp to compatibilism).

Other resources are Daniel Dennett and Chris Taylor's essay Whose Afraid of Determinism (in Oxford) or that I just found yet haven't read (it appears to be a book excerpt on Dennett's compatibilism).

I myself lean strongly in the direction of incompatibilism - I don't think free will exists; since it doesn't exist, there is nothing to explain. However, I would be happy to see someone, anyone, propose a coherent concept of free will. I don't think that the free will traditionalists have really done so. You seem to be asserting that you feel free choice is a pre-condition of rationality. I say bollocks. Perhaps you would like to explain what aspect of rationality requires free choice? I don't think there is one.

(It might also prove fruitful for you to acquire a passing familiarity with David Lewis' work on contrafactuals.)