I've thought of different ways to go about this including quoting the wiki page on moral agency.
However, I think this might be the most robust.
I am going to start by quoting from two people that mostly write and worry about ethics and morality related to science and technology. I don't know anything about either of the people's religion and to my knowledge, they don't write at all on the god/no god topic and to my knowledge don't have a horse in the race.
The first I'm going to quote from is a member of the Philosophy Dept. at Dartmouth:
"A full ethical agent can make explicit ethical judgments and generally is com-
petent to reasonably justify them. An average adult human is a full ethical agent.We typically regard humans as having consciousness, intentionality, and free will."
"The other form of bright-line argument is to argue that no machine can become a full ethical agent—that is, no machine can have consciousness, intentionality, and free will.
This is metaphysically contentious, but the simple rebuttal is that we can’t say with certainty that future machines will lack these features."
Now, I'll quote from Drew McDermott who is a Computer Science Professor at Yale:
"It is commonly thought that an entity must be capable of acting intentionally, which requires that it be conscious, and that it have free will, in order to be a moral agent."
"Does all this require consciousness, feelings, and free will? Free will, yes; the others I’m not sure about. I agree with the theory of free will set out in (McDermott 2001), which states that for an agent to be free it must model its ability to choose among various options as being exempt from causation. An ethical agent must have free will simply because one can’t make an ethical decision without making a decision."
Now, these are two general people writing about philosophy. Adult mature humans are generally considered to be ethical/moral agents. Such humans are also generally considered to have free will.
They aren't biologist, they don't think much about evolution, and they don't really think about free will in humans.
Lastly, I'll quote from Sam Harris, who is an atheist and I'd even say an advocate for atheism. He also has a PhD in neurobiology, and he thinks a lot about free will in humans.
"Life Without Free Will":
"One of the most common objections to my position on free will is that accepting it could have terrible consequences, psychologically or socially. This is a strange rejoinder, analogous to what many religious people allege against atheism: Without a belief in God, human beings will cease to be good to one another. Both responses abandon any pretense of caring about what is true and merely change the subject. But that does not mean we should never worry about the practical effects of holding specific beliefs.
I can well imagine that some people might use the nonexistence of free will as a pretext for doing whatever they want, assuming that it’s pointless to resist temptation or that there’s no difference between good and evil."
That's right. Sam Harris doesn't think we have free will. He thinks we have an illusoin of free will.
Connecting that to the general concepts of being moral or ethical agents that means we would have the ILLUSION of being a moral or ethical agent (given general ideas of what those terms would mean).
Why does Sam Harris think that? Because there is no known biolgocial/evolutionary mechamism by which free will could be generated.
I'll further point out even if SOME peope MIGHT have free will, BUT if it is also possible for there to be an ILLUSION of free will, then some people might not.
Conservation of complex traits across a large species is expensive and just not likely to happen or be conserved if there is a reasonable alternative.
Now, out of fairness to alexey, I would humbly, politely, and sincerely ask Jumbo to allow alexy to respond to the OP w/o consequences.
For my part, I promise not to respond to ANY of alexey's post in this thread.