"
I don't see how maximizing future freedom of action is inherently good.
For example, having access to napalm usually gives one more freedom of action - they can now firebomb villagers if they deem it appropriate. Yet I can't think of a single use for the substance which I'd file under "good." At the very least there is grey area.
You really need to explain yourself better.
There are a lot of glossed over missing links in the argument, but this certainly stands out as the biggest. You've given no reason at all why we should consider maximising freedom to be good - you've simply asserted it and gone from there.
