Psychology, Moral Principia, and Gehenna: Good v Evil II

Psychological Flexibility And Moral Principia

Following the previous chapter, let’s see another example integrating Preemptive Bioethics and Syncretic ethical decision-making. In the early dawn of postmodern bioethics, philosopher Daniel Callahan was confronted by a feminist pro-abortion who shouted him (Callahan, 1973):

I don’t know if Callahan and his friend met again, but it is important to note that both parties had valid points, but their communication style and approach were not effective in reaching a resolution. On one hand, Callahan was bringing up important ethical questions and trying to engage in philosophical discourse. However, he may have come across as dismissive of the practical concerns of the feminist pro-abortion advocate and insensitive to the lived experiences of women. On the other hand, the feminist pro-abortion advocate had a valid point in that philosophical discourse should not be the only focus, and that practical solutions are needed to help women in their reproductive choices. However, her communication style, which involved shouting and personal attacks, was not effective in facilitating a productive conversation. In this case, preemptive bioethics could have helped by encouraging both parties to engage in ethical reflection and communication beforehand, in a respectful and empathetic manner. By doing so, they could have identified common ground and possible solutions that would have addressed the practical concerns of women while also considering the ethical implications of their choices. In addition, syncretic ethical decision-making could have helped by acknowledging the diverse perspectives and values involved in the conflict, and seeking to find a way to integrate them into a coherent ethical framework. By doing so, it would have allowed for a more nuanced and holistic approach to the issue, instead of relying on simplistic black-and-white thinking. In conclusion, conflicts are often complex and nuanced, and it is important to approach them being psychologically flexible. By engaging in preemptive bioethics and syncretic ethical decision-making, we can facilitate productive and ethical dialogue that considers the diverse perspectives and values involved.

The solutions given for the examples mentioned have a common ingredient: psychological flexibility. It involves being open to diverse perspectives, integrating values and beliefs, managing emotions, and communicating effectively. Bioethics of Displacement’s moral philosophy and psychological flexibility interact in several ways:

• ●

  Being willing to consider multiple viewpoints, and adapting one's beliefs and actions accordingly. By promoting pluralistic and individualistic ethical perspectives, the texts are advocating for psychological flexibility in ethical decision-making.

• ●

  Being aware of and adaptable to the context in which one is making decisions, and being willing to consider the unique circumstances and values of individuals. By incorporating contextual considerations, the texts are advocating for psychological flexibility in ethical decision-making.

• ●

  Being able to integrate and balance different perspectives, values, and factors in decision-making, and avoiding simplistic black-and-white thinking. By promoting an integrated and holistic approach, the texts are advocating for psychological flexibility in ethical decision-making.

• ●

  Being able to communicate in a respectful and empathetic manner, actively listening to others' perspectives, and finding common ground for productive dialogue. By advocating for respectful and empathetic communication, the texts are promoting psychological flexibility in ethical decision-making.