Moral Philosophy: The Principle Differences Between Sam Harris’s Approach and SelfFusion’s Model
In this article, we analyze how SelfFusion’s approach to value hierarchies and the reconstruction of value architecture differs from contemporary perspectives, particularly the one outlined by Sam Harris in his best-selling book The Moral Landscape (2010).
Empirical Evaluation of Well-Being vs. Rational Moral Structure
One of Harris’s central arguments is that morality can be grounded in empirical science, specifically through an evaluation of human well-being. As a neuroscientist, he argues that moral facts are discoverable through neuroscience and reason, and that the brain does not distinguish between moral facts and other types of factual knowledge. According to Harris, moral truth is tied to well-being, and actions should be judged by their empirical effects on human flourishing (The Moral Landscape, 2010).
At SelfFusion, while we strongly believe in the quantification of values and rely on scientific methods for analysis, we diverge from Harris in key areas. We argue that morality is not solely a consequence-based evaluation of well-being but also includes intrinsic duties that must be upheld regardless of their empirical effects. In contrast to Harris’s consequentialist approach, our models emphasize the intrinsic value of values—meaning that moral principles should be upheld even when immediate empirical outcomes suggest a pragmatic alternative.
This distinction is critical in decision-making. Harris’s approach suggests that moral decisions should always be weighed in terms of their tangible benefits to well-being, which makes morality an evolving and situationally dependent concept. While this has strong scientific backing—such as research on moral cognition using fMRI studies that link moral decision-making to emotional and rational brain networks (Greene et al., 2001)—it does not provide an absolute structure for decision-making.
At SelfFusion, our approach is more structured, emphasizing a clear and hierarchical Corporate Value Architecture (CVA). We argue that an established value structure must be adhered to strictly, even when empirical data suggest a different, seemingly more beneficial course of action. In this sense, we align more closely with deontological ethics, which emphasize duty and principle over consequence. We tend to align, with what Kant famously argued in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the rightness of an action is not determined by its outcomes but by whether it aligns with a rational moral law.
Practical Example: Business Ethics and Decision-Making
Consider the following example: A company is offered a lucrative partnership with a well-respected business entity. On the surface, this partnership would benefit employees, shareholders, and even the broader economy. However, the key decision-makers in the partner organization have engaged in unethical or legally questionable actions that contradict the core values of the company.
From Harris’s perspective, the deal should be assessed based on its effects on well-being — if the overall benefits outweigh the harm, then it is justifiable. This is a pragmatic and empirically grounded approach.
However, at SelfFusion, we argue that if the deal fundamentally contradicts the company's Corporate Value Architecture, it should be rejected—even if empirical analysis suggests it would be profitable. Making moral compromises based on circumstantial benefits sets a dangerous precedent, as it introduces moral relativism into decision-making. This is where we diverge from Harris’s framework: we see value hierarchies as fixed guiding principles, not as flexible constructs that shift based on situational well-being assessments.
Psychological research supports the idea that moral integrity fosters long-term success in business leadership. A study by Simons et al. (2007) in the Academy of Management Journal found that organizations with leaders who maintain strong ethical stances, even at short-term costs, cultivate stronger trust among employees and stakeholders. This, in turn, improves company resilience, stability, and long-term profitability.
In summary, Harris emphasizes empirical observation and well-being as the foundation of moral truth, while SelfFusion prioritizes a structured and principled value system for decision-making. Our approach ensures that companies and individuals adhere to a stable moral framework that does not waver based on fluctuating empirical outcomes.
Universality of Value Hierarchies: Beyond Consequentialism in Decision-Making
One of the fundamental differences between the approach taken by SelfFusion and the moral framework proposed by Sam Harris is the strictness of consequentialism. Harris advocates for a consequentialist view of morality, where the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its effects on overall well-being (The Moral Landscape, 2010). However, as our Deep Mind team has observed in practice, his book does not provide a step-by-step justification for this strict consequentialism in all scenarios.
A key limitation of pure consequentialism is that certain values do not produce directly observable empirical benefits in the short term, yet they remain morally binding because they can be universalized. This concept aligns closely with Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which argues that moral maxims should be followed regardless of their consequences if they can be consistently universalized (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785).
Principle of Universality Over Immediate Well-Being
At SelfFusion, we have seen multiple cases where adhering to universalizable moral principles—even in situations where the immediate consequences seem unfavorable—produces long-term stability, integrity, and resilience in organizations. Decision-makers sometimes must detach themselves from immediate consequences to uphold Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVH) at the personal level and Corporate Value Architecture (CVA) at the organizational level.
For example, some moral principles that often conflict with strict consequentialism include:
Truthfulness – Telling the truth even when a lie would produce immediate benefits.
Justice – Upholding fairness even when an unfair action would lead to short-term well-being.
Loyalty – Standing by commitments even when breaking them would be momentarily advantageous.
A practical business example illustrates this distinction.
Case Study: The Truth Dilemma in Corporate Ethics
Imagine a company facing a severe financial crisis. The leadership realizes that publicly lying about the company’s stability would maintain investor confidence, prevent stock price collapse, and safeguard employees’ jobs—thus producing greater well-being in the short term.
From Harris’s perspective, lying may be justified because it minimizes suffering and maximizes well-being. However, from a universalist perspective, lying as a corporate strategy cannot be consistently universalized—if all companies lied in such situations, trust in the market would collapse.
Thus, in the SelfFusion model, following the Corporate Value Architecture (CVA)—which in this case prioritizes truthfulness—takes precedence over the short-term consequentialist benefits of deception. Empirical research supports this approach:
A study in the Journal of Business Ethics (Kaptein, 2011) found that companies with strict ethical guidelines and transparent leadership structures outperform companies that rely on situational ethics in the long run.
Research on psychological safety and organizational integrity (Edmondson, 2019) highlights that truthfulness fosters trust, long-term stability, and deeper employee engagement.
Rejecting Short-Term Consequentialism for Long-Term Moral Consistency
In cases where decision-makers know that following their Corporate Value Architecture (CVA) or Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) could result in immediate negative consequences, they must resist the temptation to prioritize momentary well-being over universal moral principles.
Integrity is non-negotiable – Even if truthfulness leads to temporary loss, the stability and trust built over time outweigh short-term damage.
Consequentialism is unreliable in complex systems – Many high-risk decisions do not have immediately predictable outcomes, meaning short-term consequentialist reasoning may lead to unintended ethical compromises.
Universal values provide long-term resilience – Organizations that prioritize universalizable values over circumstantial calculations develop a stable internal culture that withstands external pressures.
In conclusion, while Harris’s framework emphasizes empirical observation of well-being as the foundation for moral decision-making, the SelfFusion model prioritizes structured value hierarchies that remain stable even in the face of uncertain outcomes. In the long run, the universality of moral values creates trust, predictability, and resilience, which benefits both individuals and organizations far beyond immediate consequentialist calculations.
The Un-Universal Aspect of Well-Being as a Moral End
Sam Harris repeatedly argues that maximizing well-being is the highest moral good, a position he defends through neuroscience and psychology (The Moral Landscape, 2010). His framework suggests that moral decisions should be guided by empirical assessments of their impact on human flourishing, with suffering minimized wherever possible.
However, when this principle is applied to real-world decision-making — particularly within organizational structures, leadership, and career paths— its limitations become apparent. Well-being is not universally measurable, nor does it always align with deeper evolutionary or long-term existential truths.
Well-Being vs. Evolutionary and Universal Truths in Value Structures
At SelfFusion, our Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) model incorporates well-being as a consideration but recognizes that some higher-level analyses transcend momentary well-being calculations. Specifically, we argue that:
Certain values, such as Family or Duty, may require short-term sacrifices in well-being but provide greater existential meaning over time.
Some values have evolutionary significance that cannot be overridden by short-term hedonic calculations.
Not all values can be weighed equally in a utilitarian calculus of suffering reduction.
For example, an individual may face a career decision that forces them to sacrifice time with their family (a top value in their SIVH) in favor of professional freedom. On the surface, such a choice may yield immediate and measurable benefits — higher income, autonomy, prestige, or personal growth. Harris’s model would likely endorse the decision that maximizes overall well-being at the time.
However, from a long-term existential perspective, this decision is irreversible, and its implications extend beyond immediate well-being. The time lost with family can never be recovered—a realization that often leads to SIVH restructuring over time.
The Conflict Between Short-Term Well-Being and Long-Term Meaning
SelfFusion’s valuation of values formula suggests that well-being should be analyzed not just in the moment but as a function of existential fulfillment over time. While short-term career success may bring pleasure and autonomy, the long-term lack of deep connection to family and future generations can result in a greater existential crisis later in life.
The Evolutionary Certainty of Certain Values
When assessing values beyond individual-level well-being, evolutionary truths come into play. Some values, such as family and reproduction, have been biologically and socially ingrained as fundamental to human survival. In evolutionary psychology, the attachment system (Bowlby, 1969) and the parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972)suggest that deeply rooted family bonds provide greater long-term meaning and purpose than transient career-based satisfactions.
Moreover, longitudinal studies in positive psychology (The Grant Study, Harvard, 1938–2013) indicate that long-term happiness and life satisfaction are most strongly correlated with deep relationships, not professional achievements(Vaillant, 2012).
Thus, even if a career choice maximizing freedom and autonomy appears rational in the short term, it is existentially unsustainable in the long term if it conflicts with deep-rooted human needs for connection and legacy.
Happiness vs. Meaning: The Case for Prioritizing Long-Term Existential Fulfillment
Some moral decisions do not reduce suffering in the short term, yet they provide a higher-order meaning that surpasses individual well-being. Choosing Family over Freedom, for instance, may temporarily decrease happiness on a hedonic scale, but it creates an unshakable sense of meaning that extends across generations.
Philosophers like Viktor Frankl (Man’s Search for Meaning, 1946) have argued that suffering is not inherently negative—when it serves a greater purpose, it can enhance existential meaning rather than detract from it. Frankl’s concept of tragic optimism suggests that humans can endure suffering as long as it contributes to a higher purpose—a principle that stands in direct contrast to Harris’s maximization of immediate well-being.
Conclusion: Beyond Well-Being as a Singular Moral End
While Harris’s empirical approach provides useful insights into the neuroscience of suffering and flourishing, it fails to account for the evolutionary and existential depth of certain values.
Some values — such as Family, Duty, and Legacy — hold universal significance that extends beyond individual-level suffering reduction.
Not all values can be measured through neuroscience or empirical well-being calculations, as some principles must be followed regardless of their immediate consequences.
Short-term well-being is not always the best metric for long-term existential success, and decisions should be evaluated based on their role within an individual's Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH).
In practical applications, SelfFusion prioritizes structured, hierarchical value systems over momentary well-being calculations, ensuring that employees, leaders, and organizations make decisions that align with deeper existential truths, not just short-term satisfaction.
Empirical Proof vs. Evolutionary Truth
As we have posited, not all moral values can be empirically proven solely through scientific methods such as well-being measurement or suffering reduction. While neuroscience and psychology provide valuable insights into human flourishing, they do not account for long-term existential meaning, evolutionary imperatives, or hierarchical moral structures.
The Role of Sacrifice and Delayed Gratification in Long-Term Meaning
At SelfFusion, we have observed that structured value systems (SIVH and CVA) often necessitate short-term sacrifices for greater long-term survival and existential fulfillment. This delayed gratification model is a key principle of both cognitive development (Mischel, 1972 – The Marshmallow Experiment) and evolutionary success(Trivers, 1971 – Reciprocal Altruism).
Harris’s model suggests that moral values should maximize well-being, but this does not account for necessary sacrifices that do not produce immediate benefits. For example:
Military service, parental sacrifice, and self-denial in monastic traditions often involve hardship, yet they contribute to greater social cohesion, long-term existential fulfillment, and survival of moral structures.
Deferred gratification has been shown to correlate with higher academic achievement, career success, and emotional stability (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990).
Psychological resilience (Bonanno, 2004) demonstrates that suffering, when framed within a meaningful structure, enhances personal strength rather than diminishing well-being.
Thus, some values cannot be evaluated purely through immediate well-being metrics. Rather, they must be analyzed within a broader existential framework that accounts for hierarchical moral structures and long-term consequences.
The Limits of Empirical Science in Determining the ‘Value of Values’
We disagree with Harris’s claim that science alone can determine the "value of values." While neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral studies can provide empirical data on how moral choices affect individuals and societies, they cannot establish an ultimate moral hierarchy.
At SelfFusion, we argue that:
Well-being is not quantifiable in absolute terms, particularly when it comes to the deeper existential question of meaning versus happiness.
Some moral values—such as truthfulness, responsibility, and justice—must be accepted as axiomatic, regardless of empirical data.
Morality must be analyzed both rationally (through value hierarchies) and metaphysically (through fundamental duty and obligation), not solely through empirical observation.
For example, truthfulness cannot always be justified through well-being calculations. A short-term lie may increase well-being, yet truthfulness as a universal principle is necessary for social trust, legal systems, and coherent ethical frameworks (Bok, 1978 – Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life).
Similarly, responsibility for one's actions is not something that requires empirical proof—it is an inherent component of moral agency (Kant, 1785 – Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).
Science vs. Rationalism in Moral Philosophy
Harris’s moral framework is scientific, consequentialist, and based on well-being. The SelfFusion model, by contrast, is rationalist, deontological, and duty-driven to a degree.
Their fundamental contradiction lies in:
The source of moral absolutes — whether morality is empirical (Harris) or rather rational (SelfFusion).
The moral worth of an action — whether it is determined by its consequences (Harris) or by the duty to follow an established SIVH or CVA (SelfFusion).
While Harris believes that well-being measurement is the key to ethical decision-making, SelfFusion posits that morality is not always reducible to empirical well-being calculations. Instead, it must be rooted in structured internal value hierarchies, duty, and universalizable principles that transcend individual circumstances.
Free Will in the SelfFusion Models
One of the deepest contradictions between Sam Harris’s approach and SelfFusion’s value hierarchy models lies in their fundamentally opposing views on free will. This divergence is not just philosophical — it directly impacts their moral frameworks and decision-making models. Harris denies the existence of free will, reducing moral responsibility to an illusion, whereas SelfFusion considers free will a necessary condition for moral action and the foundation for corporate and personal decision-making.
Harris: Free Will Is an Illusion
Harris argues that free will does not exist because all human decisions are determined by prior causes, including genetics, environment, and neurochemical processes. He bases this on neuroscientific findings, particularly Libet et al. (1983), which suggest that decisions are made subconsciously before we become aware of them.
Harris states:
“We do not have the freedom we think we have. Our choices are determined by prior causes, and we are not their author.” (Free Will, 2012)
Key Arguments of Harris's View
Decisions originate in the subconscious. The brain's readiness potential (Libet et al., 1983) shows that neural activity begins before conscious awareness of a decision.
Humans are biological machines. Just as a computer processes inputs and produces outputs, the human mind processes prior causes (upbringing, biology, experiences), which ultimately determine all choices.
Moral responsibility is an illusion. Since individuals could not have chosen otherwise, blame, punishment, and moral judgment should shift toward reforming societal conditions rather than holding individuals accountable.
Harris’s Model and Corporate Decision-Making
Harris’s deterministic view implies that:
Key Decision Makers (KDMs) are not truly responsible for their corporate choices, as their decisions are entirely shaped by prior influences.
Companies should not structure leadership around accountability, since leaders do not act freely but are merely executing predetermined patterns.
Ethical business decisions should focus on outcome-based utility rather than personal responsibility, aligning with a strict consequentialist approach.
While Harris’s model is compelling from a neuroscientific standpoint, it presents severe challenges when applied to leadership, corporate governance, and long-term business strategy.
Free Will as a Necessity for Morality and Leadership in SelfFusion’s Model
In sharp contrast, SelfFusion rejects hard determinism and embraces free will as the foundation of moral agency and leadership. While we acknowledge that biology and past experiences shape human behavior, we argue that conscious, rational decision-making is both real and necessary for ethical corporate leadership.
The Kantian Perspective: Free Will and Moral Law
Our view aligns with Immanuel Kant, who argues that free will is essential for morality:
“A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.”
(Critique of Practical Reason, 1788)
Kantian ethics posits that:
Freedom is the ability to act according to moral principles, not impulses.
Individuals must be assumed to have free will to be held accountable.
Moral responsibility exists only if one could have chosen otherwise.
The Role of Free Will in Corporate Value Architecture (CVA)
At SelfFusion, we argue that corporate leadership and ethical decision-making collapse without the assumption of free will.
Leadership demands responsibility. If KDMs were merely products of past causes, then accountability in business would be meaningless. However, we observe that great leaders actively shape their own paths, demonstrating intentional agency.
Moral decision-making requires choice. If an employee does not have free will, why should they be trusted to make ethical choices? The CVA model relies on free will, as structured hierarchies require deliberate alignmentwith corporate values.
Corporate integrity depends on autonomy. If employees and leaders cannot truly choose between honesty and dishonesty, then ethics become an illusion. The SelfFusion model assumes that moral agency and structured internal value hierarchies (SIVH) guide decisions rather than blind determinism.
Case Study: Applying Free Will in Business Strategy
Consider a CEO who must choose between:
Option A: Accepting a short-term, high-profit deal with an unethical partner.
Option B: Rejecting the deal because it contradicts the company’s Corporate Value Architecture (CVA).
Harris’s model suggests that the CEO's choice was predetermined by prior experiences, brain chemistry, and external influences. The decision was never freely made—it was inevitable.
SelfFusion’s model, by contrast, argues that:
The CEO actively evaluates the CVA and deliberately aligns their actions with core principles.
Their commitment to corporate ethics is a conscious decision, not an illusion of control.
The decision to reject unethical deals strengthens moral leadership and reinforces corporate integrity in the long run.
The Ultimate Contradiction: Determinism vs. Moral Agency
The fundamental divide between Harris’s deterministic view and SelfFusion’s structured value model is stark. Harris argues that moral responsibility is an illusion, as all decisions are merely products of prior causes — genetics, environment, and unconscious processes. In contrast, SelfFusion holds that moral action requires free will, and that individuals and corporate leaders must actively align their choices with structured value hierarchies (SIVH/CVA).
From the perspective of leadership and accountability, Harris’s model suggests that Key Decision Makers (KDMs) are not truly responsible for their choices, since their decisions are predetermined by past experiences and external influences. This view fundamentally undermines the concept of responsibility, making leadership nothing more than a pre-scripted role played out by individuals whose choices were never truly theirs to make.
In contrast, SelfFusion’s model asserts that KDMs must take full responsibility for their corporate choices, as ethical leadership is impossible without agency. By recognizing and actively structuring value hierarchies, leaders do not merely follow an unconscious script — they make deliberate choices that define the long-term integrity and success of their organizations.
When it comes to moral decision-making, Harris’s framework relies on consequentialist calculations, where actions are assessed based on their perceived outcomes rather than their intrinsic ethical value. Since all decisions are determined by prior causes, there is no genuine moral agency, only cause-and-effect mechanisms at play.
The SelfFusion model, by contrast, rejects the idea that morality is entirely consequence-driven. Instead, it emphasizes that moral principles must be rooted in structured internal value hierarchies (SIVH) and Corporate Value Architecture (CVA). Ethical decisions are not made purely based on anticipated well-being outcomes — they are chosen because they align with deeply embedded moral frameworks. This distinction is crucial because decisions rooted in value structures lead to long-term moral consistency, whereas decisions made purely on consequentialist grounds are susceptible to ethical drift.
In the domain of business ethics, Harris’s deterministic model implies that no leader or employee truly has control over their ethical behavior. If all decisions are predetermined by external forces, then corporate ethics become arbitrary, and there is no fundamental moral agency in business leadership.
Conversely, SelfFusion argues that corporate ethics require real decision-making capacity, meaning that employees and leaders must actively align their choices with an established CVA. Without free agency, companies cannot develop lasting integrity, and without structured value hierarchies, corporate decision-making risks becoming entirely reactive, opportunistic, and inconsistent.
Finally, when examining the role of value hierarchies (SIVH/CVA), Harris’s deterministic perspective renders them meaningless—if choices are predetermined, then values are merely psychological artifacts with no real role in guiding decisions. On the other hand, SelfFusion maintains that structured value hierarchies are essential for guiding both moral and corporate actions, as they provide a rational framework for leadership, strategic direction, and ethical consistency.
Conclusion: Why Free Will Matters in Business and Ethics
Harris’s scientific determinism provides valuable insights into human cognition but fails to offer a workable model for leadership, ethics, or corporate decision-making. If free will is an illusion, then:
KDMs are not accountable for their actions, making leadership a mere illusion.
Business ethics become arbitrary, since no one truly chooses their moral behavior.
Corporate Value Architecture (CVA) collapses, as employees cannot meaningfully align their choices with company values.
At SelfFusion, we argue that free will is not just real—it is the foundation of moral leadership. Our model emphasizes that:
Employees should and can choose their actions freely, based on universal moral laws rather than external forces.
Leaders must be accountable for aligning corporate decisions with ethical value hierarchies.
CVA is a real and functional structure, guiding ethical behavior in organizations.
Thus, rejecting free will undermines moral responsibility, leadership, and corporate integrity, while embracing structured value hierarchies ensures long-term success and ethical stability.
The Free Will Debate: SelfFusion’s models vs. Sam Harris theory
At the core of Sam Harris’s moral philosophy is the outright denial of free will. He argues that all human choices are determined by prior causes, including genetics, neurological processes, and environmental conditioning. According to Harris, the brain’s inability to perceive its own deterministic functioning creates the illusion of free will—but in reality, our thoughts and decisions arise entirely from unconscious causal mechanisms (Harris, Free Will, 2012).
In contrast, SelfFusion maintains that free will is a necessary postulate for morality. Without autonomous agency, moral duty and responsibility become meaningless. Our model posits that human beings are rational agents capable of choosing their actions based on Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVH) and Corporate Value Architecture (CVA), independent of external causation.
The Contradiction in Moral Responsibility
Harris’s determinism presents a fundamental contradiction in moral responsibility. He argues that blame and personal accountability are misplaced because individuals have no ultimate control over their actions. Instead of moral culpability, Harris advocates for understanding behavior through a neuroscientific lens, focusing on rehabilitation and systemic improvement rather than traditional notions of justice and responsibility.
SelfFusion, however, takes the opposite view: responsibility is the foundation of morality. If human beings are not accountable for their choices, moral law becomes arbitrary. Our data-driven analyses of value hierarchies in corporate environments reveal that functional, crisis-resistant hierarchies are consistently rooted in truth and responsibility at every level. Organizations that fail to enforce accountability tend to suffer from internal instability, moral drift, and decision-making paralysis.
Empirical Science vs. Metaphysical Rationalism
Harris’s model is rooted in empirical neuroscience and determinism, suggesting that morality should be reframed based on neuroscientific insights rather than traditional concepts of free choice. He cites neuroimaging studies (Libet et al., 1983), which suggest that brain activity precedes conscious decision-making, as proof that free will is an illusion.
SelfFusion, on the other hand, is grounded in metaphysical rationalism. We argue that without the assumption of free will, the entire foundation of morality collapses—or at the very least, moral evaluation within human resource management becomes significantly harder to quantify. While science can explain causal mechanisms, it cannot prescribe ethical imperatives. True moral leadership requires value-based decision-making and active alignment with a structured hierarchy of principles.
Why Free Will is Crucial in Business Leadership and HR
The denial of free will in corporate leadership and HR management would mean that employees and decision-makers are not responsible for their actions — an idea that would fundamentally undermine performance evaluations, accountability systems, and corporate ethics.
Conversely, SelfFusion’s models are designed around the assumption that human agents make real, autonomous choices. This allows us to:
Assess the integrity of KDMs (Key Decision Makers) based on how consistently their actions align with corporate values (CVA).
Determine an employee’s resilience and career trajectory by analyzing their structured internal value hierarchy (SIVH).
Reinforce responsibility-based leadership, ensuring that organizations operate with long-term ethical stability rather than short-term opportunism.
The Practical Implications of Free Will
While Harris’s deterministic view has scientific merit in explaining causality in human behavior, it ultimately fails as a framework for moral accountability and corporate decision-making. If no one is truly responsible for their actions, then leadership, performance evaluation, and ethical corporate culture become meaningless constructs.
SelfFusion’s approach maintains that moral agency is not just real — it is essential for the structured development of employees, leaders, and organizations. Without free will, value hierarchies become arbitrary, moral responsibility disappears, and corporate integrity collapses. In contrast, embracing free will allows for ethical leadership, resilient organizational structures, and meaningful career trajectories — all of which are essential for long-term corporate success.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Approach
Harris’s Deterministic Argument: Strengths
Harris’s deterministic model is grounded in neuroscientific research, particularly studies on decision-making and brain activity that suggest choices are influenced by subconscious processes before conscious awareness. Libet et al. (1983) demonstrated that neuronal activity precedes conscious decision-making, implying that our perception of making choices is a post-rationalization of pre-determined processes.
This perspective provides a strong scientific foundation for the claim that free will is an illusion. Additionally, Harris’s model encourages a more rehabilitative and compassionate approach to morality. If individuals do not truly choose their actions, then moral blame should be reconsidered, and punishment should focus on behavioral reform rather than retribution. This has significant implications for criminal justice, corporate ethics, and HR management, advocating for structural changes rather than individual accountability.
Harris’s Deterministic Argument: Weaknesses
Despite its scientific appeal, Harris’s determinism raises serious philosophical and practical challenges:
The Problem of Moral Justification
If free will is an illusion, then moral responsibility collapses. Without personal agency, there is no rational basis for ethical expectations, justice, or accountability.
This leads to a paradox where moral systems are reduced to mechanistic cause-and-effect discussions, stripping morality of its meaning (Dennett, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting, 1984).
Human Dignity and Agency
Most legal, ethical, and corporate systems assume that individuals are accountable for their actions. If everything is predetermined, then punishment, reward, and ethical decision-making lose coherence.
Critics argue that accepting full determinism risks treating people as passive entities, which contradicts the intuitive and legal principles of human dignity and agency (Pereboom, Living Without Free Will, 2001).
Inconsistency with Everyday Human Experience
Even if some cognitive processes occur subconsciously, human beings still experience decision-making as a conscious, intentional act.
Psychological research suggests that people who believe in free will tend to be more ethical, accountable, and motivated (Baumeister et al., 2009).
The mere belief in free will has been linked to better job performance, increased responsibility, and stronger adherence to ethical norms.
SelfFusion’s Framework: Strengths
SelfFusion’s approach acknowledges the complexity of human decision-making but insists that free will remains a necessary postulate for morality, leadership, and corporate ethics.
Moral Responsibility as a Rational Imperative
Without free will, moral laws would be meaningless. Corporate and legal systems rely on the assumption that people can choose between right and wrong.
The SelfFusion model aligns with Kantian ethics, where moral autonomy is the foundation of duty and justice (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785).
The Presumption of Free Will is Necessary for Ethical Leadership
Even if neuroscience casts doubt on free will, pragmatically, we must assume it exists.
Corporate decision-makers cannot function effectively if responsibility is dismissed as an illusion.
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVH) and Corporate Value Architecture (CVA) provide frameworks that ensure ethical reasoning and accountability remain intact, even in high-stakes leadership decisions.
Alignment with Psychological and Organizational Research
Studies show that employees and leaders who believe in free will demonstrate stronger accountability, productivity, and resilience (Stillman & Baumeister, 2010).
The belief in self-determination and personal agency correlates with higher job satisfaction, career motivation, and ethical decision-making.
HR models that assume free will—rather than full determinism—lead to better team dynamics, leadership effectiveness, and long-term corporate stability.
SelfFusion’s Framework: Weaknesses
Metaphysical Assumption of Free Will
While free will is a necessary postulate, its existence is difficult to prove empirically.
The SelfFusion model relies on rationalism and ethical philosophy, which may be criticized for lacking direct neuroscientific validation.
Conflict with Some Scientific Findings
The idea of humans as fully autonomous agents contradicts some neuroscientific studies suggesting our thoughts and actions are shaped by subconscious determinants.
However, the SelfFusion approach does not deny the influence of external factors but maintains that moral agency still plays a decisive role in structuring ethical behavior.
Practical Necessity of Free Will in HR and Leadership
While Harris’s deterministic view is compelling from a scientific standpoint, it fails as a framework for moral accountability, corporate decision-making, and leadership evaluation. If human actions are entirely predetermined, then corporate leadership, employee accountability, and ethical integrity lose their foundational justification.
In contrast, SelfFusion’s model insists that moral agency is not only real but essential for structuring resilient corporate cultures and effective HR strategies. Without the assumption of free will:
Decision-making in leadership becomes mechanistic rather than strategic.
Moral responsibility disappears, leading to weakened corporate ethics.
Employees are less likely to engage in proactive career development and accountability.
While determinism has its scientific merits, it is insufficient as a basis for organizational ethics and corporate success. By maintaining a structured value hierarchy that assumes responsibility, ethical reasoning, and long-term strategic alignment, SelfFusion ensures that businesses remain stable, resilient, and morally coherent in an AI-driven world.
An Unresolved Debate: The Core of Moral Philosophy
The contradiction between Harris’s deterministic model and SelfFusion’s structured value hierarchy approach is nothing extraordinary—it represents one of the most fundamental disputes in moral philosophy.
At the heart of this disagreement lies a critical question: Is free will an illusion, or is it a necessary condition for morality?
Harris challenges the foundation of moral responsibility by rejecting free will, arguing that all human decisions are determined by prior causes such as genetics, neurobiology, and environmental factors. If free will does not exist, then moral responsibility must be redefined in a way that focuses on modifying behavior rather than assigning blame (Harris, Free Will, 2012).
SelfFusion maintains that free will is the foundation of moral action. Without personal agency, ethical laws and corporate responsibility would lose their meaning, as there would be no rational basis for accountability, leadership, or personal development. Our model insists that structured internal value hierarchies (SIVH) and corporate value architecture (CVA) require the assumption of free will to function as effective decision-making frameworks.
This debate remains unresolved, as neither side can fully refute the other without making a deep metaphysical assumption:
Harris assumes that all causation is physical, meaning conscious choice is illusory, and our perception of agency is merely a byproduct of deterministic processes.
SelfFusion assumes that free will exists beyond empirical causation, making morality a rational necessity rather than a purely scientific concept.
Conclusion: A Shared Goal, Different Mechanics
Ultimately, this contradiction is not just about how we should act, but about whether we can even choose our actions in the first place. This makes the debate between determinism and moral agency not only philosophical but also existential—with profound implications for justice, ethics, corporate responsibility, and human identity itself.
Despite these differences, there is one fundamental agreement:
Both Harris’s research and SelfFusion’s models aim to reduce human suffering and improve decision-making in personal and organizational life.
However, our mechanics differ significantly:
Harris focuses on neuroscientific explanations of behavior, advocating for a data-driven, consequence-based approach to morality.
SelfFusion emphasizes the necessity of rational moral laws and free will, arguing that value hierarchies provide a structured framework for leadership, resilience, and long-term ethical success.
In the end, while science may inform morality, it cannot fully define it — which is why structured value systems, ethical reasoning, and moral responsibility remain central to effective human decision-making.
Some of the Resources used for this Article
1. Sam Harris's book Free Will (2012), published by Free Press, argues that free will is an illusion. Harris posits that all human choices are determined by prior causes, including genetics, neurochemical activity, and environmental influences. He asserts that the brain cannot distinguish moral decisions from other cognitive processes and that neuroscience confirms this deterministic model. The book, which carries ISBN 978-1451683400, explores how this perspective should reshape our understanding of moral responsibility. More details can be found at Sam Harris's official website.
2. Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2010), published by Free Press, argues that morality should be grounded in science, particularly neuroscience and psychology. Harris posits that moral facts exist and can be empirically measured by evaluating well-being and suffering across different societal conditions. He asserts that moral truths are objective in the sense that they relate to human flourishing, and thus, morality should be treated as a branch of science rather than philosophy. This work, which carries ISBN 978-1439171226, is available for further reading at Sam Harris's official website.
3. A foundational study by Benjamin Libet et al. (1983), published in Brain, provided one of the first neuroscientific arguments against free will. The study, titled "Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential): The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act," demonstrated that unconscious neural activity (readiness potential) precedes conscious intention to act. This research suggested that voluntary actions are initiated by the brain before the individual becomes consciously aware of the decision. The full study, which appeared in Brain (Volume 106, Issue 3, pages 623–642), can be accessed at PubMed.
4. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (1788) presents a counterargument by asserting that moral responsibility requires the assumption of free will. Kant argues that human beings must act according to rational moral laws and that without free will, moral duties would be meaningless. His categorical imperative insists that ethical behavior must be grounded in universal principles that apply independently of deterministic influences. A full translation of Kant's work is available at Wikisource.
5. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781, revised 1787), published by Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, is a foundational work in Western philosophy, exploring the limits and structure of human cognition. Kant argues that knowledge is shaped by both sensory experience (a posteriori) and innate concepts (a priori), making a crucial distinction between phenomena (the world as we perceive it) and noumena (the world as it exists in itself). This work establishes his transcendental idealism and sets the groundwork for his later ethical theories. The full text is available in various editions, including the translation by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 978-0521657297). Further resources can be found at Cambridge University Press.
6. Daniel C. Dennett’s book Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (1984), published by MIT Press, offers a compatibilist view, arguing that determinism and moral responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Dennett explores how the illusion of free will is still functionally significant, providing an evolutionary and cognitive framework for understanding decision-making. This work, ISBN 978-0262540421, is available through MIT Press.
7. Alfred R. Mele’s Free Will: Action Theory Meets Neuroscience (2010), published by Oxford University Press, examines the intersection of philosophical theories of free will and empirical findings in neuroscience. Mele challenges the idea that neuroscientific studies conclusively disprove free will, arguing that human agency involves complex decision-making processes beyond simple neural causation. The book, with ISBN 978-0195374392, can be found at Oxford University Press.
8. A study by Aaron Schurger, Jacobo D. Sitt, and Stanislas Dehaene (2012), published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, revisited Libet’s findings and proposed an alternative interpretation. Their research, titled "An Accumulator Model for Spontaneous Neural Activity Prior to Self-Initiated Movement," suggested that readiness potential might not indicate the unconscious initiation of movement but rather represent stochastic fluctuations in neural activity. The study, appearing in Volume 109, Issue 42 (pages E2904–E2913), is available at PNAS.
9. Uri Maoz et al. (2019) further explored decision-making in their study "Neural Precursors of Decisions That Matter—An ERP Study of Deliberate and Arbitrary Choice," published in eLife. Their research distinguished between arbitrary decisions (where readiness potential played a major role) and deliberate decisions (where conscious thought was more influential). This study, which appeared in Volume 8 under article number e39787, supports the notion that free will may exist in a meaningful form in complex decision-making contexts. The full paper is accessible at eLife.
