Freedom over Morals?

In the class discussion today, interesting topics were brought up.

Liberty versus Morality, for instance.

The example brought up was lobsters, and how, to eat a lobster, one must boil said lobster. It really does put things into perspective, and leads a person to consider the freedom of being able to do something, to the righteousness of doing that same thing.

Is it right to boil another creature to death, just because it tastes good? Because a person has the ability do something, can it really be said that it is perfectly ok to do that thing? You certainly can't say that that is true for every case, and if you can't, does that make everything true, but only on a selective basis?

If a cow tasted better when boiled, would someone boil a cow alive? What about a dog?
And if the freedom to do any single thing is more important to people than the rightness of that action, where is the line drawn?

That's always seemed to be the case with my view of the NRA. Just because they can, should people own so many guns? Is it really safe for anyone else to have 80-year-olds to 18-year-olds (barring some legal inability that I don't know about) carry firearms around, simply because they can?

Shouldn't there be a better reason than "because"? Has there ever seemed to be the need for one? It seems that it is human nature ( sometimes, at least) to come up with a glib answer for everything, even when there isn't an answer.
"Why?" "Just Because."
I'd imagine that there are many people who never consider changing their eating habits, for instance, simply because that is how their habits are. Just because.