"You seem, then, to be unsure about whether we're actually free or not. "
If you ask me whether I fuck sheep, and I don't answer, would you infer that I am unsure about the answer? I don't "seem" to be unsure; I just don't care about the question, because I must act as if the answer is that I do have free will. I try to focus on questions with answers that inform choices. The question you asked is not such a question for me.
Because we must behave as if we have free will, our talk about morality is not "foolish," as it is necessary to the POSSIBLE fiction that we do have free will. If we must behave as if we have free will, then we must discuss morality as if we have free will.
Aggression, racism, and sexism have paid off. To some extent, they continue to pay off. But they are not binary traits. Societies can suppress them or exalt them, with different results in different environments. Generalizing about them is a fool's errand. Obviously, we must be capable of aggression or we will be conquered by killer bees. But when we have learned how to live together - which is a technology - aggression loses its adaptiveness. When we figure out how to reduce the risk of bringing home the bacon, gender roles arguably lose their urgency. Things change, so optimal strategies change.
Rape is obsolete. Defectors defect. Bad people are "bad" precisely because they do things that, if commonly done, would result in collapse. But there will always be outliers. Who knows? Maybe, some day, there will be only one man and one woman left on earth. They can then debate the morality of rape, but only if the guy is sufficiently horny and unconstrained by earlier moral strictures. The species probably needs the urges to persist, and if we need the urges, then we can expect there will be exemplars who cannot control them.
Recent poling suggests that New York women would prefer that Gov. Cuomo not resign. Maybe more women see sex as a tool in their arsenal than woke feminists understand. You call it degrading; maybe the women YOU know don't need the tool. For most women, though, being hot is an asset, not a liability. Why should they put down the vaginal wrench just because YOU think it's unseemly? It's just another privilege, and for some, it's the most important one they have. Maybe you know the joke that ends "Fight fair, n******." I think that's how many women may feel about you saying they should not "exploit" men's lust, etc.
The behaviors I condemn are, in my view, obsolete or obsolescent. But the genetic predispositions that make them possible may still be playing a role, as predispositions, that support other, salutary behaviors. There was at one time (may still be) speculation that the same genetic stuff that gives Jews Tay-Sachs accounts for their intellectual achievements.
Who knows what bad acts are just unwanted side-effects of necessary predispositions? Maybe the aggressive urges that account for bad behavior must exist so that they can be channeled into competitions that produce excellent outcomes. I suspect that you don't believe in competitiveness as an evolutionary strategy. I do. That's not to say, obviously, that I don't believe in cooperation as a strategy, too. I use the analogy of a sports league. The teams compete aggressively under rules arrived at cooperatively, because the real object of the game is to sell beer, trucks, and boners.
Yes, I don't understand your point about psychiatrists, and yes, whatever.