How to Cope with Decision-Making Under Pressure: A Three-Level Model
When it comes to moments of decision-making, alignment with both personal and organizational Structured Internal Value Hierarchies is crucial. The more significant the decision, the more clearly it becomes a question of values. The challenge is that most decisions can be rationalized; however, for decision-making to remain sustainable over the long term, a corporate value structure must be deliberately built and maintained. Each new decision that is aligned with this structure strengthens it further.
During career transitions and major decisions in personal or work life, a profound internal tension often emerges between two competing forces: the biological undercurrent of neuroticism and the extraversion-driven attraction to novelty. In our corporate consulting experience, we have consistently observed that, in the majority of cases, neuroticism achieves a “silent victory,” manifesting as a rationalized decision to avoid change. This avoidance, however, is deceptive — choosing not to decide is itself a decisive act.
In what follows, we will outline a three-tiered model of decision-making, particularly relevant for individuals high in neuroticism. We conclude by presenting a structured argument for the necessity of the "leap of faith" as a third and essential level of decision-making — one that transcends internal inhibition and reorients the self toward meaningful transformation.
Neuroticism Over Excitement
In any significant career or life decision, two opposing psychological forces are typically at play, especially when viewed through the lens of personality trait psychometrics. On the one hand, neuroticism introduces a baseline of emotional volatility — fluctuations in mood, heightened sensitivity to risk, and a general tendency toward worry or rumination. On the other hand, individuals may simultaneously experience extraversion-driven excitement toward novelty, ambition, or opportunity. The resulting internal conflict often escalates over time, and is frequently accompanied by persistent — and sometimes paralyzing — doubt about the decision, even after it has been made.
Based on our empirical observations in corporate settings, we have consistently found that neuroticism tends to win this internal battle, especially among older individuals and women. This is not due to a fundamental sex difference in neuroticism itself, but rather to the moderating influence of perceived responsibility — particularly toward one’s family. The greater the sense of responsibility for others, the more likely an individual is to default to safety and maintain the status quo, even at the cost of personal growth.
Levels of Decision-Making Mechanics: Minimizing Neuroticism Through Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs)
To address the tension between neurotic inhibition and the desire for meaningful life changes, we propose a three-level framework for understanding decision-making processes, particularly in individuals with elevated neuroticism. These levels can be understood as distinct rational strategies — each offering a different cognitive mechanism for navigating internal conflict:
A) Pure Rationalization (selective treatment of facts)
B) Deterministic Normative Narrative (selective treatment of values)
C) Rational Leap of Faith (alignment with an external normative moral framework)
A) First Level of Decision-Making: Pure Rationalization (Selective Treatment of Facts)
Many individuals, especially those with high general intelligence, are capable of generating highly plausible rationalizations for either side of a decision — whether to take a "leap of faith" or to maintain the status quo. These rationalizations often appear sound, well-reasoned, and supported by evidence, yet they typically operate within a closed-loop system of selectively curated facts. In this sense, pure rationalization does not emerge from the pursuit of truth, but from the psychological need for internal coherence and self-justification.
Notably, the mechanisms of pure rationalization remain consistent across age groups and domains of decision-making. Whether in children learning to construct internal dialogues or in experienced leaders weighing high-stakes career moves, the cognitive structure remains largely the same. What differs is the linguistic sophistication and volume of stored semantic content used to support the rationale.
From a psychometric standpoint, this kind of rationalization is less an expression of reason and more a defense mechanism coordinated by older, evolutionarily conserved brain structures — particularly those associated with threat avoidance and reward prediction. In essence, the act of listing arguments becomes a psychological “weighting exercise,” giving the illusion of objectivity while serving an already-biased emotional agenda.
Even when decisions involve high-stakes questions — such as marriage, parenthood, or academic or corporate transitions — pure rationalization allows for robust fact-based cases to be constructed on both sides. These are not merely "rational-sounding" arguments; they are often factually valid and may even cite legitimate empirical research. Yet the power of this mechanism lies in its ability to selectively retrieve and emphasize data from episodic memory, semantic memory, or conversations with others — shaping a narrative that aligns with the preferred emotional outcome.
Mechanics of Pure Rationalization
What we have observed in our empirical work — particularly among those who consider themselves "highly rational" — is a striking pattern: individuals construct fact-based justifications with remarkable fluency, often without realizing that their selection criteria are emotionally pre-filtered. The critical insight is this: the mechanism of rational explanation is itself emotionally loaded and ideologically flexible. Rationalization becomes less about intellectual integrity and more about semantic positioning — crafting arguments that validate a prior emotional orientation, often without conscious awareness.
In this model, individuals unconsciously engage in ideological semantics rather than rigorous rationality. Decisions, though seemingly based on facts, are actually made by submitting to one of three default forces:
The Big Other — institutional authority, external rules, or cultural norms (which may include both state regulation and informal social coercion).
Nihilistic Coin-Tossing — deferring to randomness or passive resignation, often interpreted as “letting life happen.”
Subordinate Drives — allowing unexamined impulses or emotional instincts to dictate direction, usually under the guise of “gut feeling” or intuition.
In each of these cases, the individual relinquishes sovereignty by masking emotional submission under the language of “reasonable decision-making.” This is the core weakness of pure rationalization: it creates the illusion of agency while disguising structural passivity. In the absence of a deeper value framework — particularly a structured internal value hierarchy (SIVH) — this mode of decision-making frequently serves as a psychological decoy, leading not to true choice, but to rationalized avoidance.
B) Second Level of Decision-Making: Deterministic Normative Narrative (Selective Treatment of Values)
At this level, the decision-maker begins to realize the limitations of factual deliberation. They acknowledge that rational, fact-based arguments can be constructed for opposing choices with equal plausibility. Faced with this epistemic deadlock, the individual seeks refuge in a value framework — a structured set of normative principles that may offer moral or existential clarity where empirical reasoning fails.
In other words, the person attempts to shift the basis of decision-making from epistemological explanation to ontological justification. The decision is no longer merely about what “makes sense,” but about what is right, just, noble, or good. The individual seeks to align their choice with a higher-order ideal — often moral, spiritual, or philosophical — that promises to anchor their decision in something beyond transient emotional states or data-driven ambiguity.
This structure provides a more ordered and semantically grounded framework for deliberation. In many ways, it appears more robust than the purely rationalist model. It situates the individual within a larger system of meaning, providing a sense of coherence and direction. However, this system — when analyzed closely — often suffers from a critical flaw: the implicit or explicit negation of free will.
The Mechanics of Value-Driven Determinism: The Disappearance of Agency
Many spiritual and pseudo-philosophical traditions — including strands of Western mysticism, Neo-Taoism, New Age metaphysics, and various yogic systems — present comprehensive normative models of how the universe functions and how decisions should unfold. These systems typically include theories of cosmic order, karma, or energetic alignment, which dictate the “correct path” forward.
While these frameworks often offer profound existential comfort, they also subtly erode the concept of individual agency. In their most distilled form, such systems reduce the self to an illusion or obstacle — something to be bypassed or dissolved. The highest spiritual state is often framed as the disappearance of the self and the acceptance of “what is.” The individual becomes a conduit through which the universe flows, rather than an agent capable of original, value-directed choice.
Here the logic becomes strikingly deterministic. If the self is an illusion, then so is volition. If true action arises only from surrender — and surrender entails the elimination of preference — then all moral weight is effectively outsourced. The individual becomes an observer of their own life, rather than a participant. Decisions no longer carry responsibility, because outcomes are interpreted as preordained or cosmically aligned. In this structure, free will is dissolved in transcendental causality.
The result is a kind of semantic sleight of hand: the same rational mechanics described in the first level (selective use of facts) are replicated here — except now the selection process is applied to values. One does not pick the most useful fact but the most “resonant” spiritual interpretation or the most “aligned” cosmic outcome. Behind the scenes, this is often just a redirection of avoidance behavior, albeit with more elegant vocabulary and metaphysical cover.
The Pseudo-Sovereignty of Self-Created Value Systems
An alternative version of this level — particularly prevalent among secular individuals — is the construction of self-generated value systems. At first glance, this seems to echo Nietzsche’s vision of the Übermensch: the creator of values in the absence of God. However, there is a crucial distinction. Nietzsche spoke of historically transformative value-creation — something achieved collectively over time, not through arbitrary personal preference.
In contrast, many modern individuals cobble together ad hoc value systems based on selective emotional resonance, aesthetic intuition, or culturally fashionable virtues. These frameworks are rarely coherent, let alone transformative. They are psychological patchworks — assembled not from deep self-conquest, but from emotionally expedient selections drawn from ideologies, social media, therapy language, or past trauma.
The fatal flaw here lies in divided will. The individual becomes both the legislator and the enforcer, both the judge and the criminal. The same mind that creates the value is the one expected to be transformed by it. This structure collapses under its own epistemological weight: if the entire system is internally generated, then it cannot transcend the biases, limitations, or blind spots of the generator. It becomes self-referential and ultimately impotent.
From a depth-psychological perspective, this model assumes that the individual has full conscious access to their values — a view that is categorically false. As Freud, Jung, and countless others have shown, the unconscious plays a decisive role in moral and emotional development. A self-created value system, in this light, is not an act of sovereign authorship, but an elaborate rationalization layered atop unexamined drives.
The tragic irony is that such frameworks often feel empowering. They offer the illusion of control and moral authorship. But structurally, they lack the most essential ingredient of true freedom: external accountability. Without a value structure that transcends the individual — one that can confront, resist, and redirect their will — there is no real freedom, only self-looping narratives of justification. As Kierkegaard might have said: “The self that wills itself is, in despair, not truly a self.”
C) Third Level of Decision-Making: Rational Leap of Faith
(Functional External Normative Moral Framework)
As discussed in earlier works — particularly in the context of the Three-Dimensional Orientation Model — this level of decision-making involves a conscious submission to a normative external structure. Unlike the previous levels, which rely either on the selective use of facts (Level A: Pure Rationalization) or values (Level B: Deterministic Normative Narratives), the third level introduces an axiomatic commitment to a functional, coherent, and morally binding framework. This structure typically possesses two non-negotiable features: absolute top values (often monotheistic or transcendental in character) and clearly delineated limits for behavioral and ethical conduct.
Despite its structure, this level is still termed a "leap of faith" for a good reason: there is no rationally provableguarantee that the framework one adopts is metaphysically true. The individual takes a step not because of certainty, but despite the absence of it. The leap, therefore, is not into irrationality — as critics often claim — but into a supra-rational commitment grounded in historical, existential, and functional validation.
Why It’s Still a Leap — and Why It’s Still Rational
The "leap" aspect stems from a core philosophical insight: no ultimate moral framework is provable in the strict empirical or deductive sense. If absolute moral truth were subject to universal consensus through rational deduction, then debates about meaning, virtue, or transcendence would have long been resolved. That has not occurred. Instead, we find persistent pluralism, fragmentation, and metaphysical ambiguity.
Faced with this, the rational move is not to remain in the paralysis of doubt — nor to oscillate endlessly between pseudo-spiritual relativism and isolated self-generated value systems. The rational move is to choose the framework most likely to preserve meaning, coherence, and continuity across time, uncertainty, and human fallibility.
Here, the leap of faith becomes not only justified — but strategically superior. The person commits to a framework not because it is beyond critique, but because it offers something the others do not: direction under pressure, coherence under chaos, and meaning in the absence of certainty. Søren Kierkegaard, the originator of the term “leap of faith,” grasped this existential dynamic with remarkable clarity. He recognized that commitment to an ultimate value or structure will always appear absurd — but not committing is even more absurd. It is the absurdity of meaninglessness itself.
Moral Dogmatism vs. Intellectual Fanaticism
Importantly, this level of decision-making does not imply intellectual rigidity or blind obedience. Dogmatism here refers to axiomatic orientation, not closed-minded absolutism. A moral framework can be absolute in its value structure (i.e., placing one top value above all others) without becoming fanatical in its application.
In fact, clarity of structure allows for humility in dialogue. When a person knows what they stand for and why, they are more capable of engaging difference without collapsing into relativism or defensiveness. The opposite is often true for those without clear value hierarchies: their “open-mindedness” is a mask for confusion, and their tolerance collapses under pressure because it lacks root.
The rational leap of faith enables a kind of dogmatic humility — the ability to say, “I choose this framework not because I can prove it, but because all the others fail to produce meaning, coherence, or transformation in the long run.”
Historical Validation and the Argument from Civilizational Endurance
This is where the historical track record of religious and metaphysical systems becomes relevant. One cannot simply disregard the fact that the world’s major religions — Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. — have shaped not only cultures but entire civilizations. These systems have preserved identity, enabled large-scale cooperation, structured morality, and provided existential coherence across centuries, if not millennia.
From this perspective, the leap of faith is not a desperate act of irrationality. It is a strategic submission to frameworks that have already proven their durability and functional value. Even Blaise Pascal’s famed wager — that belief in God carries no downside and potentially infinite upside — gains renewed force in this context. While Pascal’s argument was rooted in personal utility, it anticipates a more robust point: functional moral frameworks work, and if none can be proven, choose the one that sustains human flourishing over time.
Kant and the Limits of Rational Morality
Secular philosophers like Immanuel Kant have come close to constructing such frameworks, particularly with his categorical imperative and emphasis on universality and moral law. However, Kantian ethics provides the form of morality, not its content. It tells us how moral reasoning ought to function, but not what to aim for in an ultimate sense. The Kantian imperative, when stripped of metaphysical grounding, can become a kind of moral formalism — useful but not transformative.
True moral frameworks, by contrast, provide both ontological orientation (what is good) and epistemological methodology (how to know it and act upon it). They offer not just decision-making tools but ways of life.
The True Rationality of the Leap
Ultimately, this third level of decision-making is the only one that unifies agency, responsibility, direction, and meaning. The first level offers flexibility but no grounding. The second offers values but often without agency or coherence. The third offers both structure and the possibility of transformation — and does so with full acknowledgment of human limits.
The leap of faith is not an escape from reason. It is reason’s recognition of its own boundaries, and a courageous choice to act anyway.
SIVHs as a Micro-Version of Normative Religion
As the preceding analysis makes clear, value hierarchies are not optional constructs; they are ontological constantsunderlying every decision-making process. At each of the three decision-making levels described earlier, a distinct form of top value implicitly governs the process:
Level I – Instinctual Rationalization: The highest “value” is typically immediate drive satisfaction or avoidance of perceived risk — often misrepresented as rationality but rooted in limbic response patterns.
Level II – Deterministic Normative Narratives: The top value becomes Freedom — not as responsibility-bearing agency, but as the justification of all behavior through personalized or spiritualized meaning systems that bypass direct moral accountability.
Level III – Rational Leap of Faith: Here, the top value is submission to a Greater Good — a transcendent principle that structures meaning and behavior through alignment with a moral absolute (e.g., service, sacrifice, divine order, legacy).
In this light, Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) function as microcosmic analogues of religion. That is: every meaningful decision — even the seemingly minor ones — reveals the presence or absence of an internalized value hierarchy. And when that hierarchy is present and integrated, action becomes non-fragmented and decisive, often with little cognitive strain. The more consistent and vertically ordered the SIVH, the more naturally moral clarity and behavioral coherence emerge.
Jung’s Prediction and the Myth of Atheistic Neutrality
Carl Jung anticipated this very dynamic in his treatment of modernity and the unconscious. His assertion that “everyone has a religion, whether they know it or not” highlights the psychological inevitability of structured belief. In Jung’s terms, if institutional religion is abandoned, it is quickly replaced by personal mythologies or unconscious symbolic systems, which guide behavior with equal conviction — but far less epistemological self-awareness.
From this perspective, atheism is not the absence of belief, but merely a differently constructed ontology, often less examined and less historically validated. Its epistemic mechanics — internal justification, value prioritization, symbolic abstraction — remain structurally identical to those of religious systems. What differs is not the architecture of belief, but the strength, orientation, and intergenerational coherence of the value system.
In simpler terms: all people act from faith. The only question is faith in what — and how coherent and generative that faith is over time.
Anti-Antagonism and Narcissistic Mysticism as Substitutes
This same principle applies to what we might call antagonistic or anti-antagonistic identities, as well as modern forms of Westernized mysticism or spiritualized individualism. These are, functionally, second-level decision-making systems masquerading as deep frameworks. Often found in therapeutic, New Age, or identity-centric circles, such systems offer the appearance of order while strategically preserving the illusion of unlimited personal freedom.
At their core, they represent a refined narcissistic evasion of moral responsibility, cloaked in the language of compassion, healing, or "authenticity." But because they are not rooted in externalized, dogmatic, monotheistic moral structures, they lack the integrative capacity to sustain action across time and across relationships. Their symbolic grammar remains internal, fluid, and non-binding — a semi-coherent worldview that crumbles under the weight of real ethical obligation.
SIVHs as Scaled-Down Dogma
SIVHs, by contrast, are structurally similar to religious frameworks but scaled to the individual. They do not require belief in metaphysical entities, but they do require commitment to absolute values and a coherent hierarchical structure. That structure creates internal moral architecture that serves the same function as religious dogma — namely, it limits impulsivity, stabilizes self-narrative, and allows long-term action in alignment with something higher than mood or context.
The closer an individual’s SIVH aligns with a historically validated religious or moral tradition — such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Stoicism, or Kantian ethics — the greater its existential potency and durability. This is not accidental: these traditions survived not because of brute force or cultural inertia, but because they accurately reflected and reinforced psychological and archetypal truths about human motivation, suffering, and meaning.
In this way, SIVHs can be seen as the interface between ancient moral wisdom and modern psychological self-structuring. They offer a bridge between secular personality development and spiritual alignment — not as a diluted version of religion, but as its internalized operational core.
Karma Explained: A Kantian Perspective on a Cross-Disciplinary Principle
When considering the phenomenon of karma, it is more illuminating to interpret it through Kantian metaphysics than Jungian mysticism — particularly if we seek to maintain philosophical precision while avoiding metaphysical overreach.
In Jung’s conception, particularly within the framework of the Unus Mundus, karma is often interpreted as a mystical resonance between the personal unconscious, the collective unconscious, and the material world. In this view, unconscious psychic material — especially guilt repressed within the shadow — exerts an influence beyond the individual psyche, subtly shaping external events. This perspective suggests that the psyche and world are symbolically entangled: inner psychological imbalances can find symbolic expression in outer occurrences, a form of "archetypal synchronicity."
However, it is worth remembering that Jung studied Kant and was likely influenced by his philosophical structure, even as he sought to extend it into more symbolic or mythopoetic dimensions. What Jung describes as archetypal resonance may in fact be a phenomenological elaboration of what Kant defined systematically.
Kant asserted, as a foundational axiom, that every event has a cause — that causality is not a contingent feature of the world but a necessary condition of human experience (Critique of Pure Reason). Yet he also posited that not all (potential, because we can not comprehend noumenon) causality is accessible to us. We experience the world only as phenomena — structured by our cognitive faculties — while the ultimate nature of reality, the noumenon, remains inaccessible.
In this light, karma can be reframed as a noumenal structure of causality that remains hidden to empirical observation, but still operates consistently. The fact that we cannot trace all consequences of an action does not negate their existence; rather, it highlights the limitations of our cognitive access to deeper levels of moral and causal reality.
Religious and Evolutionary Perspectives
Religious traditions, particularly in Eastern and Abrahamic frameworks, share this view of karma as a moral causal principle. However, they externalize the operation of karma through divine judgment or cosmic justice. Within Christian theology, for instance, actions are recorded and judged by God, and the right to vengeance or retribution is reserved for the divine. In this sense, karma is not an immediate balancing mechanism, but a transcendent evaluative system outside the grasp of human administration. Retributive justice is delayed — often posthumously — but ultimately assured.
From an evolutionary perspective, a radically different — yet not incompatible — framing emerges. Here, karma might be understood not as a metaphysical or theological mechanism, but as a self-regulating principle of species survival. That is: individuals whose behaviors contradict the adaptive values of cooperation, trust, or group survival are systemically filtered out. In this reading, karma becomes a descriptive evolutionary law — the eventual elimination of maladaptive behavior through natural and social selection. The “punishment” is not imposed morally but selected against biologically.
Karma as a Descriptive, Not Normative, Principle
Crucially, this allows us to see karma not as a normative law (i.e., a moral commandment) but as a descriptive principlethat spans disciplines. The recurrence of karmic-like consequences across biology, anthropology, psychology, theology, and moral philosophy points to the likelihood that we are dealing with a universal structural reality.
In this sense, Kant and Jung may both be correct: Kant articulates the causal necessity of action-consequence relationships, while Jung interprets their symbolic and experiential dimensions. The former gives us clarity on the logical and epistemological framework; the latter offers insight into the felt reality of karma as lived experience.
Thus, the phenomenon of karma is best understood not as a supernatural ledger of punishment and reward, but as a cross-domain pattern recognition — an experiential acknowledgment that actions, especially moral ones, ripple through unseen dimensions of life, returning in forms that may elude direct explanation but never escape cause.
An Illustrative Example of the Karma Principle
To bring clarity to the otherwise abstract idea of karma as a descriptive principle, let us consider a highly charged, real-world example.
Suppose a young woman, in a long-term relationship, conceals an abortion following an act of infidelity. Initially, she lies to her partner and her family, but the truth surfaces later through evidence or confession. Not long after the revelation, her father is diagnosed with a serious illness — say, cancer.
On the surface, one might argue that there is no connection whatsoever between the two events. This is a scientifically plausible position, especially when viewed through a lens of empirical causality limited to observable phenomena. From this perspective, the daughter’s actions and the father’s illness are discrete, unrelated incidents — a coincidence within a chaotic, impersonal universe.
Yet, such a view — one that denies any form of deep causality or moral structure — comes at a philosophical cost. It reduces human action and suffering to the randomness of a “game of life,” where no justice, symmetry, or meaning underlies the sequence of events. Under this paradigm, even the reader deciding whether to continue reading this sentence is merely the result of neurological impulses and probabilistic drift, rendering concepts like morality, guilt, and consequence ultimately trivial.
Karma — when understood beyond pop-spiritual caricature — offers a multi-layered interpretive framework that resists such nihilism. Let us explore how different intellectual traditions approach this scenario:
1. Kantian Perspective
From Kant’s framework, every event in the phenomenal world has a cause — even if the cause is not immediately accessible to human cognition. The daughter’s action and the father’s illness may indeed be causally linked in ways that elude observation. The fact that the connection is not empirically demonstrable does not negate its possibility; it merely indicates that it may lie within the realm of noumenal causality, beyond the boundaries of sensory or scientific access.
2. Jungian Perspective
From the Jungian point of view, particularly via the Unus Mundus, this chain of events can be understood as a psychic-symbolic process. The daughter’s unconscious guilt, particularly around betrayal, concealment, and the destruction of life, reverberates into the collective unconscious and then manifests in the material world — here, through the father's illness. In Jungian terms, this would be an example of archetypal compensation or shadow transference, where unintegrated psychological content finds expression in bodily or systemic disruption outside the originating subject.
3. Religious Perspective
Within a religious moral framework — for instance, Judeo-Christian — such a sequence might be interpreted as divine symmetry. A child was terminated by an act of will; now a parent is being taken by fate. The symmetry is not necessarily punitive but revelatory: a call to moral reflection and the restoration of order. This framework presumes a moral cosmos, wherein actions ripple through the spiritual fabric of reality and evoke meaningful consequences.
4. Evolutionary Perspective
From a Darwinian or sociobiological view, this scenario might be interpreted through genetic and behavioral filtering. Actions that undermine stable reproductive or familial systems (e.g., betrayal, concealed abortion) introduce instability into lineage dynamics. Over time, such instability may reduce long-term genetic viability. While this explanation seems emotionally detached, it reflects a principle of adaptive correction at the level of species survival.
5. Psychosomatic (Newtonian) Explanation
Perhaps the most straightforward explanation is physiological: the father, upon discovering the truth, experiences a surge of stress, shame, and unresolved guilt as a parent. This chronic distress could trigger or accelerate oncogenic processes, especially in genetically predisposed individuals. Here, the consequence is not “karmic” in the mystical sense but biological — yet still rooted in moral and emotional disruption.
No Single Explanation, But Convergent Meaning
The point is not that one of these interpretations is objectively correct or ontologically superior. Rather, they all offer complementary lenses through which to understand the deep interconnection between actions and consequences, especially when moral violations and emotional trauma are involved.
To live as if nothing is connected, and that no balance will ever be sought by the world — biologically, morally, or spiritually — is to choose a life of detached randomness. One may call this "freedom," but it often leads to disorientation, disillusionment, or even cynicism.
Conversely, to accept that some structure of consequence exists, and to seek alignment with that structure — be it religious, philosophical, or psychological — is to re-enter a world of meaning. This, we argue, is why more individuals are adopting Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) and why organizations are increasingly moving toward clear Corporate Value Architectures. These frameworks are not just tools for better decisions; they are bridges back to coherence in an age that has lost confidence in the unity of consequence and truth.
Choosing a Decision-Making Paradigm: A Three-Step Argument
We now arrive at the critical task of choosing which level of decision-making model to operate from — a task that fundamentally shapes not only our choices but our broader experience of being in the world. This selection can be formalized as a three-step argument, grounded in existential reasoning and anchored in practical implications for life and ethics.
Step One: Do You Believe in Free Will?
The first step is deceptively simple: Do I believe in the existence of free will?
If the answer is yes, then certain consequences immediately follow. Believing in free will implies that human actions are not merely the result of determinism, blind fate, or environmental programming. It assumes at least partial authorship over one’s life and decisions. For example, if I believe I am responsible for what I choose to do tonight — and that I could have chosen otherwise — then I implicitly affirm the existence of causal efficacy within human agency. I am not simply a spectator of fate; I am its co-constructor.
Thus, Premise One: Causality exists, and individual responsibility is real — at least in part.
Step Two: What Are the Limits of Our Responsibility?
Once we accept that free will — and thus responsibility — exists, we face a second, deeper question: To what extent does our responsibility actually stretch? Do we truly comprehend the full causal reach of our actions? Can we calculate all the downstream effects of our speech, our silence, our choices?
Here, even the most rational thinkers must concede the epistemological limit of our minds. We cannot read others’ thoughts, we do not know every contingent variable in a complex system, and we certainly cannot map the total ripple effect of every choice we make. Therefore, we are inevitably operating in a condition of causal opacity — acting, to some degree, in moral and existential uncertainty.
Hence, Premise Two: We do not and cannot know the full range of our responsibility. We are morally implicated in outcomes we cannot fully see or calculate.
Step Three: Does Doing Good Actually Matter?
This leads us to the third — and most difficult — step, which introduces a kind of rationalized Pascalian wager grounded in both ethics and uncertainty.
If we accept that:
our actions have causal power (Step One), and
we cannot see how far that causal power reaches (Step Two),
then the pivotal question becomes:
Is it worth acting in accordance with goodness, integrity, and self-sacrifice — even if the results are unknowable?
This question is not about immediate outcomes, reputation, or emotional satisfaction. It concerns long-range moral utility: Do self-transcendent actions — such as honesty, kindness, humility, creative contribution, or courageous truth-telling — eventually generate some form of good, even if invisible to us? Conversely, do actions rooted in manipulation, deceit, parasitism, or exploitation carry destructive consequences we may not immediately perceive?
Here, a naive conclusion would be to assert, “Obviously, good deeds lead to good outcomes.” But such a claim is intellectually dishonest. We know that virtuous people sometimes suffer, and immoral people sometimes thrive. Life does not operate on a simple input-output moral mechanism.
Therefore, the only philosophically honest answer to this third question is:
“We do not know.”
We do not know — but this ignorance does not absolve us of action. Instead, it clarifies the stakes. In a world of causal opacity and moral complexity, the choice to do good becomes an act of mature faith. Not blind faith in reward, but faith in meaning — the belief that aligning ourselves with truth, responsibility, and self-sacrifice is not guaranteed to be rewarded, but is worthy even if it is not.
Example of Limit-Case Decision-Making — and the Finalization of the Argument
And so, we arrive at the structural culmination of the argument.
If we accept the premises of free will, causal responsibility, and the epistemic humility that we do not — and cannot — fully grasp the downstream effects of our actions, then we face the world not unlike Abraham did, standing at the edge of a decision that defies rational justification and yet cannot be evaded. In this sense, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is not merely a story of obedience — it is a limit-case of decision-making that reveals the architecture of a faith-based moral framework.
The choice Abraham faced cannot be explained away through utilitarian calculus, emotional instinct, or rational deliberation. Every available tool of modern psychology and ethics collapses under the absurdity of the command. Sacrificing one’s own son — especially one conceived in old age as a divine promise — violates every parental, moral, and intuitive code we possess. And yet, Abraham acts.
He acts not because he knows how the story will end — he does not — but because he is embedded in a higher value structure that demands trust beyond understanding. It is not the outcome that validates his action, but the frameworkfrom which the action arises. This is the essence of the rational leap of faith: not abandoning reason, but placing reason within a structure that transcends immediate comprehension.
This, too, is what readers often miss in canonical narratives. Take Job, for instance — stripped of his family, health, and dignity, he is unaware of the celestial wager between God and Satan. Or consider Adam, whose fateful choice unfolds without full access to the conversation between Eve and the serpent. These characters do not operate with omniscient knowledge — they act within moral fog, limited by their finitude. And yet, their actions echo across history because they are morally significant within a transcendent structure, not merely because of their outcomes.
In each of these cases — and especially in Abraham’s — the individual reaches a decision-making limit case, where all lower-level frameworks collapse. Pure rationalization fails. Self-created values falter. Emotional reasoning misleads. At that precipice, the only remaining question is this:
Do I have a value structure capable of carrying the weight of this choice — even if it costs me everything?
This is the third level of decision-making: the rational leap of faith. It does not promise comfort, clarity, or even success. What it offers is existential orientation — a tether to meaning that stretches beyond personal suffering, social approval, or temporary reward. It provides the individual with a posture that says: “Even if I suffer, even if I do not understand, I act in alignment with what has been proven, over centuries, to bear fruit in the long arc of human existence.”
That is why, in our work with high-performing individuals and teams, the third level of decision-making — grounded in Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) aligned with universal or transcendent moral frameworks — has consistently proven to be the most stable, most generative, and most resilient model. It does not eliminate suffering, but it makes suffering meaningful. It does not avoid complexity, but it transcends confusion with coherence. And perhaps most importantly: it generates decisions that remain valid even when outcomes are painful — because they are right, not merely strategic.
In this light, faith is not the opposite of reason — it is reason anchored in something higher than itself.
Some of the References Used for the Article
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.
John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. The Guilford Press.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. Oxford University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Allyn & Bacon.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial.
Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. In S. Freud, Collected Papers (Vol. 4).
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id.
Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1938). Psychology and Religion. Yale University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1957). The Undiscovered Self. Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1952). Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. Psychology and Religion: West and East. Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. Core concepts: Collective unconscious, shadow, archetypal compensation, Unus Mundus.
Nietzsche, F. (1883–1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality.
Kierkegaard, S. (1843). Fear and Trembling.
Sartre, J.-P. (1946). Existentialism Is a Humanism.
Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Pascal, B. (1670). Pensées.
Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Rescher, N. (1969). Epistemic Logic. Blackwell.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row.
Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage.
Dennett, D. (2003). Freedom Evolves. Penguin.
Pert, C. (1997). Molecules of Emotion: Why You Feel the Way You Feel. Scribner.
Maté, G. (2003). When the Body Says No: Exploring the Stress-Disease Connection. Vintage Canada.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press.
The Bible. Especially:
Genesis 3 – Adam and Eve
Genesis 22 – Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac
The Book of Job – Job’s Trial
Romans 12:19 – “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
Parvet, W. (2025). The Three-Dimensional Orientation Model and the Role of SIVHs. williamparvet.com.
SelfFusion Internal Corporate Data and Observations (2023–2025). Proprietary field-based research and application data related to psychological frameworks, SIVHs, and decision-making under uncertainty.
