There is no such thing as free will.

Interesting points.

But this presumes that everything we do or are is controlled by biology and there is no room for independent thought.

That said, the basic existence of cause and effect limits free will. We only ever choice given how past actions affect us.

Arguments against free will are usually based on the human understanding of causation/ laws of physics etc. However, using this understanding in an argument against something implies that the world works in the way we think it does, which is not necessarily true. Thus, free will isn't necessarily impossible.

Essentially what I'm saying is possibility isn't restricted to conceivability.

I don't however believe that humans have free will in the strict libertarian sense, it is just not as clear cut as you think it is. We're led to believe that something cannot come out of nothing, but also that physical things cannot have an infinite past. Without some kind of abstractly existing deity, the existence of the universe entails that one must be false (I do not believe in such a deity). Essentially this means that something that a lot of people think to be impossible - must be true, why not free will?

P.S. OP should look at some studies as regards addiction, Bruce Alexander - Rat Park is a good place to start, casting on doubt on the powers of addiction on complex animals.

This means that when an obese person is deciding whether they should have that donut, they cannot use their willpower to stop themselves

You are correct insofar as there is no free will. I do not know if you are familiar with the works of the American neuroscientist Sam Harris? His blog posts and short book are most enlightening. I personally think that punishment is inherently immoral due to the deterministic/stochastic nature of consciousness, and therefore rehabilitation is the only possible option...

Thank you for raising the subject.

Surely the response of punishment is no more or less within the control of those conducting it than the initial offense? If the idea is that our experiences and chemical make up mean that we're more or less only ever going to go down one path (which of course constantly deviates due to new 'inputs' ie situations and environmental factors - which, too, are the result of the people involves experiences and chemical make up etc) then 'morality' as a concept stops making any sense. How can there be morality in a system where no one truly controls their own actions? How could the punishers ever do anything but punish?

Our actions are simply a competition of our desires. We do not choose our desires, and therefore we do not choose our actions. It is no more complex than that, but the illusion of free will is nonetheless powerful.

Quite easily. Were I in some position of authority within the civil service, which I never shall be, then I should go about removing punitory measures where they exist and moving towards a quasi-Nordic rehabilitation system.

I don't have time to expand now, but read Sam Harris's web article entitled Morality without Free Will.

I think the problem with removing punishment and using rehabilitation is that it is a much less effective deterrent to people considering committing a crime, and although criminals may be less likely to reoffend the crime rate may increase overall.

There is such a thing called 'free will' as we humans aren't perfect and God has given us authority over all creatures.