First of all, the question is not wether in the end you actually profit on a decision, but what your brain was expecting/betting to be the more profitable decision.

And of course, "profit" is a misleading word. It can of course also be a decision of what is "the lesser of two evils".

And the profit isn't always obvious. One could for example claim that someone who gives money to a homeless person disproves the theory. But that's not the case, for that person gets a profit as well: for example, feeling like a good person for helping the poor.

Personally, I have big doubts about free will as well. In computer sciences I learned the neural network model that is used for artificial intelligence. The basis is a very simple yet elegant mathematical model for how neurons work, the brain's smallest units. Based on this successful and plausible model, it makes sense for me to consider the brain a rather deterministic kind of computer. It's the sheer amount of neurons and synapses that makes the brain so complex and hard to understand.

On the other, the first question might be "what is free will"? From what I can read on Wikipedia, different sciences have different understandings of that phrase.

The homo oeconomicus model is flawed for several reasons (like every homo oeconomicus being perfectly informed etc.), but I don't consider things like altruism real flaws to that model. In my opinion, the "profit" of altruistic behaviour simply isn't as obvious, but in the end altruism is still "egoistic".

The basis for free will is simply that at the end of the day, the decisions are ours to make, whatever our conditions might be. That's why we need education to be able to make decisions that will do the most good for the most people, so that we can understand that we are never acting in a vacuum

Would you rather have peace, or freedom?

I agree that are more flaws on the model. But you are not right on altruism. There are cases, in which altruism benefits you personally long time. But in other cases, you clearly get no personal benefit. It is explainable with evolution, there are evolutionary benefits of such behaviour. But the model of homo oeconomicus is based on PERSONAL profit and I think if the OP talks about maximizing profit he also means personal profit. Humans do things, that are not so. Sometimes people even willingly die for others. But also less extreme cases of true altruism (not long term egoism).

If you don't have peace, you have war. War is chaotic, drastic things happen fast in a hard to predict way. Your freedoms of choice are harmed in a war, even if you first may profit from it. So, without peace freedom is much harder to achieve.

I don't see how this argument invalidates the "freedom" of free will ...

Free Will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

In the example provided the individual faced countless choices from buying candy on two days, buying coke on one day, saving their money until they could afford both, stealing one or both items, trading sexual favours with the clerk in exchange for both items, etc. and they ended up making the choice that seemed most rational to them. The fact that they had the ability to rationalize the decision and make the choice demonstrates that they had free will ...

I suppose you can explain or even justify each and every single little events or actions but that doesn't in any way invalidate free will.

Yes, xLefty and HappySquriel, you do have a point. The purpose of this thread is not to disprove free will (because that would be impossible), but to stop people from saying "Fuck him/her for commiting such actions." when in reality you can explain/justify them.