反对决定论促进没有无原因的自由意志的信仰，人类将没有理由的行为道德。然而，决定论并不否定一个人的情感和理性，而是简单地提出了什么原因使我们重新回到道德行为上。任何人都容易受到不道德的行动，从决定论的想法是敏感之前，不持有强大的道德判断之前的想法。
决定论意味着两个人之间的道德差异是由遗传倾向和环境的影响和事件造成的。仅仅因为一个人的道德的原因（取决于决定论的分支）是不完全的自己，这并不意味着决定论是对人犯罪的惩罚：独立的道德判断，处罚仍然可以改变一个人的行为。
另一种观点是，如果决定论是真的，自由意志不是，那么道德和道德是没有意义的概念。道德和道德要求选择，以便使这些概念有任何意义。但是，如果一个人没有选择，在一个确定的世界的情况下，没有自由意志，那么它不说个人是否能使更多的意义（或更少）的伦理或道德的选择，因为有提供给他们除了一个他们必须确定没有选择。
我会交替使用的话，决定论和因果关系意味着大致相同的事情，决定参照世界和因果关系指的是更具体的因果关系更一般的状态。
另一方面，山姆认为道德可以科学地研究。这就需要操作定义的“道德”（Harris提出了一个类似于“最大化人类福祉”这个定义本身是不是他的争论的焦点行为的概率的定义）。Harris还表示，由于人的大脑有一定的性质，我们可以找出客观上的道德框架；即多个“优化”的伦理系统可能出现，满足我们的道义。
新西兰心理学论文代写:自由意志的信仰
Opposition to determinism promotes that without belief in uncaused free will, humans will not have reason to behave ethically. Determinism, however, does not negate emotions and reason of a person, but simply proposes the source of what causes us to fall back on moral behavior. Anyone susceptible to immoral actions from the idea of determinism was susceptible before and does not hold strong moral judgment prior to the idea.
Determinism implies the moral differences between two people are caused by hereditary predispositions and environmental effects and events. Simply because the cause of a person's morality (depending on the branch of determinism) is not entirely themselves, this does not mean determinists are against punishment of people who commit crimes: independent of moral judgement, punishment can still serve to modify a person's behaviour.
Another point of view is that if determinism is true, and free will is not, then morality and ethics are meaningless concepts. Morality and ethics require that a choice can be made in order for these concepts to have any meaning. But if a person has no choice, in the case of a deterministic world with no free will, then it does not make sense to say whether individuals can make more (or less) ethical or moral choices, because there are no options available to them except the one they must deterministically follow.
I will use the words determinism and causality interchangeably to mean approximately the same thing, with determinism referring to the more general state of the world and causality referring to more specific causal relationships.
On the other hand, Sam has argued that morality can be studied scientifically. This would require operationally defining "morality" (Harris suggests a definition akin to "a behavior's probability of maximizing human wellbeing" but the definition itself is not the focus of his argument). Harris goes on to suggest that, given that human brains have certain properties, we could go on to identify objectively superior moral frameworks; that is, multiple "optimized" ethical systems may emerge that satisfy our definition of moral.
