Also, when judging someone to be bad or good, then doesn't the act of judging require some interpretation as well - after all, I have to correlate actions with results and then somehow assign "moral points" to that.
It gets far more complicated than that actually, because even for the individuals themselves the brain will naturally try to justify all kinds of actions or choices in hindsight. For rapid evolution it is actually vital not to follow along only the known or safe paths and for that reason the brain justifies all kinds of strange choices. Opportunity makes a thief, quite literally at times, but it obviously also has positive benefits for example; blindly jumping in front of that bus that's about to hit the kid that runs across without looking, stopping the bus and saving the child's life. Who in their right mind would justify the risk involved? Well, your brain really has no problems with that, ..or at least will try very hard to convince you it was the right thing to do.
It goes much much deeper than just right or wrong too, all the stuff with no or little moral implication is actually bound by the same stuff. From your choice of clothing, big icecream or no icecream, all the way to your choice of future wife.
This also means that while in a random discussion someone might have a good set of morals or even clear idea of what he or she is going to do with his or her future life, someone's actions might speak quite differently and yet still the brain might not even make you feel 'bad' about it at the end of the day!
When it comes to free will, there's probably simply no way of really putting your own freedom to the test.
What would qualify as an act of pure free will any way? I mean, I do belief quite strongly in a free will, but if actions can only be judged in hindsight, there's nothing you can deduct from that as far as free will goes.
