Were a person to not have a choice in the manner of an action, it would be more-so suited to objectively doing the right thing. How is this? To imagine it like a person who loves another, doing what is right for them, it is never a choice neither for the love, nor for the proof of that love. We merely do it, because we feel it right within our hearts.
Though, to possess a choice, or rather, rule a society based on choice, would make the people of a population more prone to dissect objectively correct actions into subjective decisions. Such choices, like all choices, were based on a contemplation of them. What occurs next is a population of people who question the right thing to do. All you have from this is sheer confusion and fear, being opposite of what you can do for another, out of care for them. For if to be subjective means to make a personal choice, then to be objective means to simply help another person, never out of personal choice. One would not consider what one would personally have at stake, though automatically considers what another has at risk.
Is it not also the same among science and of wisdom? What is the purpose in hoarding knowledge? To be objective would mean to offer the whole picture, the whole truth. It would fill the heart, the mind, while fragments would be like divided bread to fill a stomach. Being objective means to offer something, to be selfless. Being subjective means to only have a small understanding of the whole.
Therefore, having less choice in a matter, makes a person more prone to doing what is right for a world.