One of the biggest claims that SAF makes is that it is a universal framework. I understand the weight of this claim, so in this article, I want to go into detail about why this is true.
To understand SAF’s universality, it’s important to separate the framework in two parts: the content and the process.
Content is the “what“, the specific values and ethical rules that you load in the system.
The “what” has been debated for thousands of years, and this rich debate will and should continue.
In the Western world, this conversation has been shaped by three major ethical traditions:
- Deontology (Rule-Based Ethics): This framework argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. The morality is in the act itself. Think of it as the ethics of duty, like keeping a promise even when it’s difficult, or respecting a fundamental human right.
- Consequentialism (Outcome-Based Ethics): This is the idea that the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. The most famous version, Utilitarianism, argues for the “greatest good for the greatest number.” The famous “trolley problem” is a perfect example of this kind of thinking.
- Virtue Ethics (Character-Based Ethics): This framework focuses not on the action or the outcome, but on the character of the person acting. It argues that the goal is to develop a virtuous character through habit, so that one naturally does the right thing. We use this lens when we judge a leader not just on a single decision, but on their overall integrity and wisdom.
As you can see, these frameworks are all deeply relevant and intertwined within our society. SAF does not take a side on which of these or any other ethical system from around the world is the “correct” one.
SAF is designed to be agnostic, capable of taking values derived from any of these traditions and running them through its process.
This brings us to the process, the “how.”
While the content of values is diverse, I believe that humans share a universal, underlying process for moral reasoning. It’s a kind of “common grammar” for discernment that we all use, regardless of our specific beliefs.
This grammar follows a natural, intuitive loop:
Reason → Act → Reflect → Integrate
This is the fixed, closed-loop process of SAF, made functional by its four faculties:
- The Intellect proposes (Reason)
- The Will decides (Act)
- The Conscience judge (Reflect)
- The Spirit learns (Integrate, and Adjust)
SAF’s claim to universality is not based on imposing a single set of values on everyone. It is based on the belief that this underlying process, this common grammar of the soul, is a shared feature of the human experience.
So SAF doesn’t tell you what to believe. It provides a universal architecture to help you live in deeper and more coherent alignment with what you already believe.
I hope that leaves you with something to chew on.
