I will cover only free will here, as I don't believe anyone has a good enough handle on what morality even is or ought to be for there to be a "widely accepted" view; people seem to do a lot of talking past one another, and also a lot of confirmation of whatever particular cultural and personal notions of morality they have ended up with. The problem is not that you can't have morality in a completely material world; there are just too many different ideas about what "morality" should be.
But with free will, I think one can get something close to satisfying, even if there is not perfect agreement.
I have been unimpressed with the rigor and groundedness of Harris' philosophical arguments thus far, so I would not recommend e.g. his book Free Will (calling it "No Free Will" would have been nearer to his thesis). If it is the flagship book (I wouldn't know), it would be rather sad, as even if he ends up being correct, you probably couldn't know it from that text.
I am somewhat more favorably disposed towards Dennett's stance, though I wouldn't get them from Freedom Evolves (a long book, and one which in my opinion has more than Dennett's usual share of slightly odd conclusions). An article will suffice, e.g. this recent one in Prospect Magazine which doubles as a sort of book review for "Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will" by Alfred Mele (which sounds worth reading, though I haven't done so).
To really understand free will in the context of mind-as-a-thing-implemented-by-brains, it helps to have a good understanding of what the consequences are of having mind implemented by brain. Patricia Churchland has, I think, the clearest and most scientifically and philosophically accurate account of this at the moment in Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. This also nicely treats the free will problem in a quasi-compatibilist way (chapter 7). And covers morality also (Chapter 4) in probably as fair of a way as you'll find anywhere. (She also has a whole separate recent book devoted to morality.)