We don't have any choices:

(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.

Reductionism makes sense because everything ultimately reduces to fundamental elements. This applies to ethics as much as anything else.

Some values are invalid because they cause more harm than good.

Populism: A basic dictionary meaning of Populism is that of promoting the interests of ordinary people. But it might be related to the way referenda and elections work, in taking a crude majority opinion as a democratic choice. Or accepting an aggregate of public opinion and then governing so as to cater for the broadest width of this opinion. This is rather like governing according to fashion. It may contain some or no intelligence or logic, or consistent use of values.
In fact it is a method that would seem to be consistent with Anarchistic individualism and social randomness.
Against that there is an authoritarian form of decision making or government. This is rather theocratic with a ‘church’ that sets an agenda which future members of the church must accept. Creating a self-perpetuating authority that uses logic to justify its bigotry. Or we have a technological form of authority in which everything in life and living is designed for the general public by the academic hierarchy.
Thirdly, there is a more organic form of social rule and consensus. Not unlike what we have in Britain. But one on which the producers at all levels are working for the public benefit, and not for self-aggrandisement. Government is representative and public opinion or referenda are for advisement. Salaries and other ‘earnings’ are not let loose in globalised competition to create stratospheric unbridled rewards. The epitome of public service is the scientists and others we have long had, who work for the intrinsic rewards of knowledge with a secure income.

Social Choice: It may be asked how We and the World can or should choose the form of society we have. Either Anarchistic, Authoritarian, or Altruistic.
The plain answer is that the question is false.
If individuals have a choice about their lives, independent of others, then they are already in a degree of anarchistic society.
If they have adopted a bigoted form of religion-philosophy then they are already on course to tyranny.
If they have mutual concern for any form of welfare then they are already on course to altruism.
Or plain confused!
It may take very little to knock the boat of course. An individual or group with increasing power in anarchistic society may well take control. The rigidity of authoritarian rule may come up against the foibles of Nature, and collapse. Altruist society may adopt pragmatic measures to ensure security that warps into authoritarianism.
At the purely individual level it may be stated that an Altruist is an Altruist by the fact of his global history, in nature and nurture. Why would he contradict his own innate ethos, other than by outer forces working on him that cannot be withstood.
Such are the limits of freewill.

Have you heard of "blogs"? It's a hot new thing on the Internet - you should check it out!