The topic is: is it possible to be 'moral' without having a choice in the matter. For instance, is a person who is incarcerated (and thus prevented from committing murder perhaps) made 'moral' even if given the chance, they would committ an 'immoral' act against others?
I posit that an action is not, by itself, either moral or immoral, but rather, it is the combination of an action WITH the 'choosing' to undertake it. Not killing someone is amoral (without moral value), but 'choosing' to not kill someone is moral.
From a religious perspective, I would say this is exactly why God granted man 'freewill' because without it, Man could not 'choose' God. He could of made us all obedient little God worshippers, but that means nothing. It is in having the choice to do immoral things that the choice of being moral means something.
yes, there is a further road to the line of reasoning that I am getting at... I want to see where everyone weighs in first.