Helpful for sure but if you have read some Stirner you know what I mean. Fundamentally freedom as a concept is something that’s been endowed to you to mean something from how others constructed and defined it (or in a contradistinction) . That does not mean it’s a salient term to abide by in a super construct called morality. The corollary cannot be supposed if the prior supposition is nonsense

Probably not what you want to hear but there are a lot of spooks in your definitions. Freedom and reason are both spooks that I would aver don’t have good definitions in principle and thus cannot form a basis for a derived morality.

I think Ranulf is not unheard of