Yesterday I wrote an article titled “Understanding SAF Universality”, and I think the next logical question that might follow is this:
If everyone can plug in their own values, does it mean that all values are equally true?
This is a deep philosophical question, and it’s a passionate and common debate in our inclusive and pluralistic societies. The answer is critical to understanding the role of this framework.
The first thing we must be clear about is that SAF is a tool, not a moral agent. SAF is a system for helping a person or an organization achieve alignment with their chosen values.
SAF has no self-awareness or consciousness. It cannot know the difference between good and evil beyond the principles it has been programmed to follow.
Its job is to measure coherence, the consistency between the values you declare and the actions you take.
But coherence is not the same as truth.
Hitler could have used a tool like SAF to polish his narrative, ensuring his hateful ideology was perfectly coherent and internally consistent. Would that have made his ideology right?
Absolutely not.
This proves a fundamental point: the responsibility for moral agency always remains with the human who defines the values and uses the tool.
In this sense, SAF is like other universal processes. Double-entry bookkeeping ensures that a business’s books are coherent, but it does not guarantee the business is just. The scientific method ensures conclusions fit the data, but it does not guarantee the research serves the good. The integrity is in the process. The morality is in how people use it.
Truth is as good as the premise you start with, and perhaps we can all agree that “good” is whatever leads to human flourishing.
SAF and moral relativism
