free will

If you doing something good, go for it. But if you do something negative you are not free to do so. That's my view.

"Free will" (the term that puts the word "free" in front of something that already means "the power to act by your own volition") is a leftover from theistic thinking, and stands in contrast to "God's will".
For philosophical purposes the term causes more confusion than clarity. There are simply better ways to account for our ability to act, our freedoms and our restrictions.

In practical terms it means whatever you will is free by definition...but if you pursuit it further down you start to question if awareness of willing as anything to do with your own volition doing it...volition is a re-action to an external and internal state of affairs which fully determine your behaviour...of course anarchist genotypes will try to preach you exactly the opposite as they necessarily hate the idea of not really deciding anything in their own lives...

CONSCIENCE OF WILL IS NOT THE SAME AS WILL OF CONSCIENCE !

Free will, truly we have that, in thought. No one has the ability to control what we freely think. Actions however, if it is anything that can be determined as remotely "wrong" or "destructive" it is stopped as soon as possible. We ARE free to determine whether we like or dislike something, however, we are not freely able to decide what is allowed by such thoughts. Then we just start getting into the question "Is freedom free?" though.

Well, yes and no. Free will is a useful concept, but only in terms of ethics. It really doesn't matter if we have free will to do mundane things, like lift a fork or cross our legs -- whether those actions are free or determined is, in the end, unimportant. It is only when we ask whether a morally significant act is free or determined that it becomes a worthwhile question.

Unless of course one proves objective grounds for moral and ethics, bounded in the problem of intrinsic good and intrinsic evil, it follows then, that the absolute necessity of acting in conformity with moral rule must be abandoned...that it is not to mean then whenever we sign a contract we are allowed to breach it at any time, but instead, that we are not compelled to sign it unless we feel comfortable with it in the first place...

Free will is a largely redundant concept in my opinion. It just simply isn't true that we can act "freely" whenever we choose to; our actions are shaped by many factors, social, biological, and psychological factors. Given these factors it means that its not possible to "do whatever you like"; instead we do what these factors, and probably more besides, make possible for us to do.

However, to say that we are totally determined by these factors is also not entirely true. There are certain factors we can overcome, and its possible to increase our freedom, or our ability to make "free choices", and in the process act in accord with ourselves rather than in accord with say, fear.

...but of course, sometimes, it is possible to do whatever you like to do, when it is the case that it is possible... for instance, if it is the case that I am up for an ice cream, I can in principle go into the freezer and pick one, if it really is the case that I can...but what does that has anything to do with my free willing on it ?
(that is the issue on the table open for debate)