This is the critical question that people confront when asked to tolerate/accept more freedom in the context of society or freedoms they don't personally conform with or simply they are not aware of or consider alien, it actually means clinging to a Meta-Ethical argument and is somehow a way to say I disapprove/disagree.
often in society, our freedom to choose is limited by others, but in order to call ourselves free within the society, all the alternatives should be there in the first place, I don't believe someone should protect us from ourselves, but again, we live within society.
I don't think that freedom is absolute and I don't think its deterministic, and no matter what statistics and observations say, no matter how predictable one is said to be, I own the moment of choice, but the moment of making a choice does not ever solely rely on one thing/factor or only me.
I can't point my finger and say "any one thing" is a cause for "something" and add a full stop, our thoughts and choices are part of the physical laws and our lives are the translation that " say " what we are.
so when I assess a past action and try to ask why, I think of the situation and I weight all factors taking part including my psyche, others, alternatives available and not available, the environment, time and what were the intentions, desired results and values. Knowing that an "ought" can never come from an "is"
why we don't have the intellectual ability to know what we are? Observe humanity in whole and tell me what does the lives of humans say, look at the application & outreach of the established human system, what do you see? what are humans doing?
I hope my language didn't come out so poorly and what I wrote is reading friendly.