Ethics as an abstract notion of justice or fairness becomes difficult to extract from the general system presently used to organize life. The brain is perhaps a natural computer, and the mind is the software. More understanding of the natural processes that cause various behaviors can result in better fixes for perceived errors. But the brain is highly complex. More complex maybe the mind, or perhaps rather and particularly the content the mind can generate and its deep rooted connection to the environment. There is the natural content from innate ability and the artificial content from culture and artifacts. When the content becomes consistent and honest, some individuals are less willing to accept changes. Though, philosophers, I suppose, can have a healthy skepticism towards the world.
Ethics appears controlling, since an individual would need or ought to be ethical, assuming there is an ethical program/lifestyle that can be tapped into given effort. There aren't many repeatable proofs in ethics that are concrete in the same way as mathematics and science, perhaps. Properties related to ethics seem to express themselves in some of the biological survival tactics, but no explicit expression of the ethical idea comes from irrational moral beings, unless by accident, assuming they possess a language. In fact, the psychology may oppose a discovery of an ethical science, as it would mean the subversion of any once perceived higher power (typically the self, god, ideology, or tribe). Ultimately, rational moral individuals would remain peaceful when undisturbed. Beyond entertainment value violence seems rather useless in safe environments. In a sense, the collective mind adjusts itself based on historical events (learning) and current relations (social dynamics).
The solutions achieved are shown through the results of a particular social system. A social state is perhaps measured by the condition of its population. A group appears to be in a good condition when all its member are in a reasonable positive state and bad when its members are in an unreasonable negative state. Positive states appear more difficult to detect if individuals are less than rational moral. One could be satisfied, yet proclaim discomfort to obtain an unfair advantage, or an individual could be unaware of an actual unfair social dynamic. Negative states are seen to cause population decay and chaos, which is more readily apparent.
Freedom appears closely related to attraction and repulsion, or particularly emotional acceptance and rejection. If an individual likes an event or sensation, it typically claims to be free because it pursued the action knowing the outcome, or it may not even consider its own freedom while engrossed in the positive event. One may consider enslavement, or a closely related notion, when one is experiencing unwanted pain or hardship. The negatives in philosophy appear to be errors in epistemology, or particularly the mapping from epistemology to ontology. The mind's relation to the world is different from different frames of reference, though the fact of some sort of organization, even if inefficient, implies a unification. Perhaps such can be considered a kind of option, options appearing to be a property of freedom. Though certain truths appear dependent on ontology (unification), epistemology (mind), or ethics. Psychologically knowing what is good can be taken quite easily from biology, if it isn't offered freely by it. Whether the biology is correct or not can be a scientific or philosophical consideration, one being whether physics allows such, the other being whether an action was truly the best it could have been. Philosophy converted to science is closer to practical truth, whereas pure philosophy is seemingly quiet idealistic. Some practical truths/notions appear to necessitate the ambiguity of philosophy, such as freedom, and would be more opposed to the scrutiny and certainty of science.