Always knowing the root of why an action is taken, rather than doing things for sub-conscious reasoning, provides a basis for a higher level of personal freedom. We then know what we do in observance of societal mores; they are seen and the agent has to decide each time to follow them or not. Even if one's behavior remains seemingly unchanged, their conscious experience of choosing their actions is radically changed.
I would be remiss not to point out that it cannot change everything a person might hope it would change. For instance, an adult who was tortured as a child might have certain behavioral responses that can be treated pharmaceutically (or dealt with differently), but seeing the source of the problem may not help as much as hoped. I think this has to do with the physical markers left in the structure of the person, PTSD has a basic physical component. Seeing it for what it is doesn't make it go away.
Morality is big bag of snakes of its own. I don't think anyone's taken it further than Spinoza did in his "Ethics." Modern philosophy treats morality either like a psychological topic - the most logical answer for the metaphysical materialist, or like it exists in a vacuum. Spinoza's "Ethics" does something entirely different, by laying out his panpsychic-pantheistic monist metaphysics, the ethics are derived automatically; if We Are All One, then our ethics become something nearer to enlightened self interest, with an expansion to the concept of self.
(I'm writing all this down just now instead of climbing the walls while waiting for someone special. She might like this, since her mind is the only properly intended audience for anything I think about.)