Freedom and Responsibility

Without freedom there is no responsibility - or ethics.
Freedom is a product of evolution. I Agree with Daniel Dennett on this.
But I differ from Dennett in that I see that evolution as incompatible
with determinism. Dennett admits in places that the indeterminism of
quantum mechanics exists, but considers it irrelevant. I think it is
relevant. Evolution requires random variations. Determinism is incompatible
with random variations. This is not to say that determinism implies
predictibility. Predeictibility implies the existence of intelligence.
Determinism does not imply the existence of intelligence.
Also unpredictibility does not imply indeterminism. 
Variations that survive are "better". As Humans, variations that
benefit humans are better for humans. This includes the development of
empathy as a variation that helps humans and other life that
helps humans prosper [except say, cancer cells]. Characters of individual
humans are partly inborn, partly a product of environment. Society has
some control of both of these. Such as proper nutrition of the mother
before birth, and education of children after birth. Now, still, in an
individual case, after an individual case after a criminal character has
been formed, does the individial deserve punishment for a crime? He
cannot help having this character [even if he made decisions in the
past leading to his having it]. This is complex. I think the whole
legal system [which varies greatly in places and times] is an attempt
to answer this question. Great moral progress has been made by some
who saw injustices in the then prevalent legal system, and protested
against it.
Ethics could, on this view, be an extension of Bertrand Russell's concept
[adopted from Leibniz] of compossibility. But it could be interpreted on
a way closer to its original meaning. Not composibilty merely of
desires, but compossibility of existence.