Are you sure that the freedom you are talking about as existing in the universe is not luck, chance, the actualization of a contingent possibility?

If you think there is a causal difference between freedom and luck, then what do you see as that difference. — Cavacava

Luck and freedom are not directly related. If our actions have causes they are not free. On the other hand, freedom requires a goal (as opposite to a cause). However, we may mistakenly perceive the cause for the goal (say, how can we know if the pleasure is our goal or the cause for our actions?). Accordingly, we may be lucky in achieving our goal but if we have the cause our actions were not free (and vice versa).

it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. — rogita

This part I have a serious problem with. I don't think there's any reason to believe that free phenomena would be responsible for the development of the universe--not that I'd be asserting the opposite; I'd be more agnostic on this issue. — Terrapin Station

Determinism cannot evolve. It is an eternal repetition of the same things.

And re "the aim," I think that that idea is just nonsense. Only persons have aims. — Terrapin Station

"Persons" are part of the universe. They are "the front edge" of the evolution.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. — rogita

This would undermine your first premise, that freedom is an objective property of the universe. If we can't know if there are free phenomena, then it might not be an objective property of the universe after all. — Terrapin Station

We cannot know freedom because it never repeat itself. It is unpredictable. But we can make this assumption because it explains evolution.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. — rogita

??? By whom? I wouldn't say that freedom/determinism have anything to do with good/evil. — Terrapin Station

By any sentient being. Freedom is what allows it to BE (to be not a biological object but an unique personality). Determinism perceived as any force. It forces compliance with laws of nature. It destroys freedom to be yourselves.

The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. — rogita

As with aims, duties are the ideas of individuals. There is no objective or correct duty, purpose or meaning. — Terrapin Station

That duty is bestowed upon sentient beings by freedom. They try to improve the world. But "to improve" means "to make it better" -> "to make it freer".

Humans are animals per biological classification. — Terrapin Station

Humans are a lot of things, for instance they are physical objects. Only freedom make them what they are - free beings. Being free means to have moral duty to bring more freedom to the world. Otherwise, if they simply follow the laws of nature, they become animals, that's right.

The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. — rogita

The basis of what consent? Anyway, people who reject all forms of violence seem to be a minority. — Terrapin Station

General contract requires agreement, consent to common ethical norms derived from it. Without the common basis the contract is impossible. Freedom is the only universal basis for the general agreement. And you are right - ethical people are rare. The current state of humanity is it is only at the beginning of moral progress.

Ethics of the contract includes the conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) — rogita

This just seems arbitrary--and how did "objectivity" sneak into there? — Terrapin Station

The contract is impossible without ethics. Rationality goes against the contract because it is rational to be animal, to follow the laws of nature, to survive and prosper. Freedom (therefore contract and ethics too) cannot be justified rationally.

I think it's far more complex and varied than that. — Terrapin Station

Everything is more complex is more complex. I presented the start point.