Hi, RAZD.
I think you and Perdition are making some valid points. I can agree that there certainly is a distinction between "will" and "free will" as the two of you define them, and it certainly makes sense in theory and semantics to distinguish them.
My only problem with it is how well it really represents what people actually think about the subject. Surely even the most ardent believers in "free will" still believe that the decisions they make are under some measure of compulsion or obligation due to external factors, right?
If they choose, of their own free will, to donate to a hospital or volunteer for disaster relief efforts, won't they acknowledge some amount of moral obligation to do so? Would their belief in free will cause them to report that moral obligation was not important in making the decision? Would it cause them to report decreasing free will in decisions with increasing moral or social obligations?
Off the cuff, I don't think so; but I could be wrong. I'd be interested in finding out, one way or the other, though.
My point is that it's easy to model the concept of "free will" with neutral examples like which Sudoko puzzle or which ice cream flavor to choose; but, surely you aren't proposing that free-will proponents believe all decisions are made in the absence of external obligations or influences?
Perhaps the difference is that you classify such things as "causative agents," while they regard them as merely "peripheral influences" that help them make their decisions?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.