Well, now I think we're getting somewhere. You suggest that freewill is a maguffin. Let me ask you directly: Do you think we're free in the sense that we're morally responsible for our actions? Are we autonomous agents? If not, I'm not sure why you're talking so much about morality. If yes, I don't see how freewill need be only a maguffin or part of a superficial, exoteric understanding of morality.

You're equating morality with evolutionary fitness and functionality. In that case, rape and murder should be moral, because they pay off in evolutionary terms. We evolved to be aggressive, sexist, and racist, which is a big problem for evolutionary psychologists, and it's why I find those explanations shallow.

What's missing from it is the acknowledgement of our anomalous creativity and autonomy which enable us to go against our breeding. Condemning aggression, sexism, and racism is a moral condemnation of evolution. So much for the reduction of morality to evolution.

What's good for animals is what's good for their species or their genotype. What's good for people is much more likely to be what's bad for the evolution of animals and for the ecosystems and, in the end, for people themselves. The planet wasn't prepared for the emergence of a vain, godlike species whose "progress" threatens to destroy everything. Morality is part of that risky, possibly foolhardy, utterly selfish (human-centered) progress.

I don't think your point about the personal attack goes very far. Tell those who endured enormous hardship that their life or their suffering is just a game, and see if they don't feel insulted by that mode of explanation. In that case, game theorists go ad hominem first.