Sapolsky is definitely not saying anything goes. He is saying the opposite. We homo sapiens are very complex. Part of that is the ability to project possibilities into the future thanks to our prefrontal cortex. So we create ethics to essentially protect ourselves and our societies from our worst tendencies. A big point of his is that we should focus more on understanding the biology behind human best (altruistic) behaviour and encourage that in a more scientific systematic way.

The part about pre-determination is about the way we humans, as part of our developed ethics, dehumanise members of our species who have outlier behaviour. That is a religious approach rather than a scientific approach. All human behaviour is human. There are no demons. 

So if someone commits a terrible crime, of course that needs to be condemned, but the person is still human and to the extent that we can, we should try to prevent that crime from happening again. Sometime people can be rehabilitated. Sometimes we don't know how. But we can at least prevent others from doing that crime in the future. 

A lot of this has to do with child abuse by the way. There is a certain gene variation that will bring out psychopathic behaviour, but only if the person was abused as a child. That is what epigenetics is about. That the gene gets activated. Crazy stuff, but that is how we work. So that is at least one part of the very complex equation why some people who are abused as children will become criminal or abusers is some way and others (most others) not.