a person unable to distinguish between right or wrong has a voice in his head that tells him to, let's say, give all of his fortune to charity. Can we evaluate his actions ? — Hello Human

An act as the above will certaily appear as one of charity. What we have to evaluate is not the act itself --which is easy, it it's a good by itself, under any moral rules-- but rather the motivations for it, the intentions behind it, the reasons why it was done. This will characterize it as a moral act of just an act. If it is done on free will and with the intention to help, it will certainly be an act of charity, i.e. a moral act. Otherwise, there are hundreds of reasons why someone could do that: he might have a mental condition (hearing voices in his head that are telling him what to do), he might done it under threat, he might have decided to give away everything and live as monk (some have done that), etc. In that case we can't talk about charity, of course.

If he was a billionaire, and his money allowed to save 1 million lives from war and disease, can we say that he acted morally? — Hello Human

Billionare or not, the main thing is that the person gave away all his money and he's left with none. The ony diference is that a rich man can do that easier because he most probably will be able to make money more easily than someone with a low income. But anyway, the morality of his action will be judged according to what I said above.

we must first make a distinction between a good action and commendable action — Hello Human

I can't see a big difference between them, although there may be some nuances. I consider both of them ethical (moral). But again, as long as they are done on free will and with the intention to help.

Ok, tell me one motive without attraction. I can't imagine that such a motive exists. — litewave

I can't. I too believe that all motives have an attraction. My point was that even though the two general ends have an attraction, the choice to prioritize one end over the other is both unmotivated and without attraction.

But if the coma was not permanent and I saw someone try the pill and testify to its blissful effect without harm to their health, I might try it too. — litewave

Sure. But the condition is that the comma is permanent. Yet, you still feel the effect of great pleasure through it.

Hard determinism simply underlines the lack of free will and the realization that all is process. Sin is thus negated, and one's total responsibility for ones present condition in the here and now must be reexamined though the process of thought about the processes of ones life.