Psychology - Ethical Dissonance - Essay Example

Of course, in psychology, we have Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance that says, “If a person holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent, he experiences dissonance: a negative state (not unlike hunger or thirst)” (Aronson 128). Elliot Aronson elaborated that Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance hold that the experience of dissonance is “unpleasant” and, thus, “the person will strive to reduce it----usually by struggling to find a way to change one or both cognitions to make them more consistent with one another” (128).

According to Aronson, Festinger integrated the dynamic marriage between the cognitive and the motivational (128). Thus, given the Aronson review, it is just as viable to define ethical dissonance as the unpleasant experience of having two divergent ethical perspectives on the use of drugs that enhance or that claim to enhance physical and mental capacities. Following Aronson’s interpretation on Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, the ethical dissonance described to modify one or both ethical perspectives to make them consistent with one another because of discomfort. . by where the individual has to struggle to modify one or both ethical perspectives within himself or herself to make his or her perspective consistent.

Smith and others defined cognitive dissonance theory as a theory that “assumes that there is a drive toward cognitive consistency, meaning that two cognitions---or thoughts---that are inconsistent will produce discomfort, which will in turn motivate the person to remove the inconsistency and bring the cognitions into harmony” (Appendix G-3). Ethical perspectives, after all, are also types of cognition. My interpretation of the Gary Stix assertions on ethical dissonance is that there are three ethical perspectives on the use of drugs or medical treatments or procedures for boosting physical or mental capacities or enhancers (the focus of the Stix article was on the cognitive).

The first ethical perspective holds that physical and cognitive enhancers are unnecessary, unfair, and that it is improper to use enhancers or employ medical procedures that would boost one’s physical or cognitive capacities except for such conditions like dementia, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s patients. The premise for the first ethical perspective is not evidence but perspective. The ethical perspective assumes that enhancers do work. The assertion that the use of enhancers is unfair or that it is improper involves perception and not evidence.

The second ethical perspective hold that enhancers or medical procedures that boost physical or cognitive capacities are similar to wearing eyeglasses and that we must dispense with the notion that drugs or medical procedures are only for illnesses. Related to this, Stix noted that an article from an influential journal in 2008 raised “the prospect of a shift away from the notion of drugs as a