Well, off topic as it is (in this thread) I don't think we need to solve the matter with respect to the Primary World, but we could discuss the matter in some measure with respect to
Tolkien's Subcreated World . . .
. . . and for that I would recommend reading
Fate and Free Will in
The Nature of Middle-Earth --
see also Fate and Free Will in Tolkien Studies volume VI, edited by Carl Hostetter, which is there presented after Verlyn Flieger's essay:
The Music and the Task: Fate and Free Will in Middle-Earth.
As I once tried to sum up Verlyn Flieger's opinion (please consider that her full argument is going to be much more persuasive, even
if I have accurately "potted" her argument in one brief sentence): V.F. argues that
Elves do not have free will in an "external sense" -- that is, their choices cannot change external outcomes but may have inner consequences for them, as with
Feanor choosing not to surrender
the Silmarils.
Or, another time I tried to briefly present her opinion: Verlyn Flieger argues that Elves have no free will with respect to altering
events. She uses Feanor's choice (regarding the surrender of the Silmarils) as an illustration of events not being altered (and speaking more generally now)
"but deeply influencing the inner nature of individuals involved in those events."
I actually disagree with V. Flieger here.
And on that note, I also recommend:
Strange and Free — On Some Aspects of the Nature of Elves and Men, by Thomas Fornet-Ponse, Tolkien Studies volume VII.
And I hope (once again) that CFH will forgive that I lift him out of the context of a larger discussion (elsewhere), to post this much of his interesting commentary:
__________
"Tolkien does not ascribe Free Will to Men (and by implication deny it to Elves) in any text save the very first pencil draft of what became "The
Ainulindale". Already in the next, fair copy version Tolkien replaced the term "will" with "virtue"; and these terms are not interchangeable. Virtue is
power (i.e., ability and/or efficacy), not (simply) will (i.e., intent/choice). I submit that the usual dichotomy drawn between Fate and Free Will in these discussions is false. Tolkien makes it quite plain that Will is operative only
within "provided circumstances" (i.e. of the World (
ambar) and of Fate (
umbar); see
Letters p. 195): thus they are
not mutually exclusive terms."
[different response]
"Furthermore, Tolkien's own discussion in the unpublished note on "Fate and Free Will" certainly makes no claim or even implication that Free Will obtains only when there is an
ultimate consequence to its exercise. Rather, there, "free will" is defined as obtaining when (and only when, but by implication
always when) a determination of course (action or inaction) is made for a "fully-aware purpose", amid the physical conditions and processes of the world (
ambar) and the network of chances within "fate" (
umbar). As Tolkien says in
Letters, Free Will is "derivative" (i.e., I take it, of
God's will and of His creation of the world and of rational
creatures which He endows with will) and therefore always operates "within provided circumstances". As these unpublished notes explain, these "circumstances" are both
ambar 'the world' and
umbar 'fate': and these are "provided", of course, ultimately by
Eru himself. Obviously, exercises of Free Will so defined can have moral valuation, can even be "sinful",
within the world and apart from questions of one's
ultimate destiny, since they can either accord with or violate the moral standards of the world that ultimately also derive from Eru."
CF Hostetter
__________
Perhaps it was fate that this topic should emerge in this thread?
Or something!