A lion, a rabbit and a woman stand before you. You place a steak and a salad in front of each one of them and say, "You are free to choose which one you want to eat." We already know what the Lion and Rabbit will choose, because their instinctive nature dictates it. It is predetermined by their inborn nature. We don't know what the woman will choose, because her choice is truly free, because her nature is such that she could eat either one. It is contra-causally free. She is free to willingly choose the steak or the salad. Nothing in her nature or anything created by something outside herself is determining that choice. She determines that choice. She may desire to lose weight and choose the salad, or she may desire the taste of a steak. She might desire both and have to determine on which desire to act. The actor determines the act. Some seem to think that the Lion's and Rabbit's choices are equally free simply because they are 'choosing what they want.' But, clearly they are not. They are instinctive. Some reduce mankind's morally accountable choices to animal instinct because they wrongly assume men are determined by innate desires set by their inborn nature. What say you?