We often encounter ethical dilemmas that require us to make decisions, express opinions, or take action based on what we believe is “the right thing” to do. These dilemmas arise in various aspects of life - whether in the political ideologies we support, our stance on societal issues, or the advice we offer others. In some cases, laws, legislation, and societal norms make it easier to determine what is considered “right”. However, ethical decision-making is often far from straightforward. Instead, it is frequently approached with a simplified mindset - one that leaves little room for deeper thinking or for questioning our own assumptions.
This blog post explores the psychological mechanisms behind ethical decision-making, particularly unconscious bias, and how these mechanisms shape the way we perceive right and wrong.
A Case Study: The Purple Heart Dilemma
A compelling example of a complex ethical dilemma comes from Michael Sandel’s book ‘Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?’. In the U.S. military, the Purple Heart is awarded to soldiers wounded in combat. Historically, however, only those with visible, physical injuries have been eligible. Soldiers suffering from psychological trauma, such as PTSD, have been excluded, as their wounds are not externally visible.
This raises an important ethical question: Should psychological injuries be recognised in the same way as physical ones?
If the purpose of the Purple Heart is to honour those who have been harmed in service, does excluding PTSD reinforce outdated notions of what constitutes a “real” injury? On the other hand, if the award were extended to psychological trauma, how would eligibility be determined, given the complexities of diagnosing and measuring mental suffering?
This dilemma illustrates how right and wrong are not always clear-cut. It challenges us to reflect on our assumptions and unconscious biases about fairness, recognition, and the evolving understanding of mental health in society. For this process to take place, we must observe our own stances and try to understand why we may support one opinion while rejecting another.
Unconscious Bias: The Hidden Force Shaping Our Judgments
But what is unconscious bias, really?
Unconscious bias refers to deeply ingrained beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes that shape our perceptions and decisions without us being fully aware of them. These biases often stem from early experiences, cultural conditioning, and internalised societal norms.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, unconscious biases originate in the unconscious mind - the part of our psyche that holds repressed emotions, memories, and learned associations. Freud described the unconscious as a powerful force influencing our thoughts and behaviours in ways we may not recognise.
Returning to the Purple Heart example, if someone was raised in an environment that idealised physical resilience but dismissed emotional struggles and didn’t promote emotional expression enough, they may unconsciously devalue psychological injuries like PTSD, viewing them as “less real” than physical wounds.
From a cognitive psychology perspective, unconscious bias is linked to mental shortcuts (heuristics) that help us process information quickly. While these shortcuts are useful for everyday decision-making, they can lead to systematic errors in judgment when applied to complex ethical issues. Confirmation bias, for example, makes us more likely to accept information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Identification, Projection, and “What Feels Wrong”
If we grew up in a family that idealised toughness and discouraged emotional vulnerability, we may struggle to empathise with the idea that psychological injuries can be as painful as physical ones. In this case, we have learned - consciously or not - that emotional expression is not to be honoured, and mental suffering is not to be acknowledged or addressed. This conditioning may lead us to instinctively reject the idea that PTSD should be recognised with a Purple Heart.
When we encounter people who challenge these ingrained beliefs, we may feel strongly against their actions, perceiving them as “wrong”. Phrases like “don’t be soft”, “man up” or “soldiers should be tough” might be examples reflecting internalised beliefs that emotional resilience is superior to emotional expression and vulnerability.
However, if we grew up in an environment where emotional expression was encouraged, we may naturally empathise with soldiers suffering from PTSD and struggle to understand why they would be excluded from receiving the same honour.
Interestingly, when an idea feels foreign to us, it may indicate that we are unconsciously identifying with it more than we think. For instance, soldiers suffering from PTSD may remind us of a part of ourselves - one that was never allowed to be emotionally vulnerable. As a result, we may instinctively reject their struggle, distancing ourselves from what we were once taught to suppress.
In such cases, the defence mechanism of projection may be at play. Projection occurs when we disown traits we find unacceptable in ourselves and instead attribute them to others - often judging them harshly for it. This demonstrates how our internal world influences our moral reasoning, sometimes leading us to adopt simplified, rigid perspectives on right and wrong. This type of rigid thinking, where things are categorised as entirely right or wrong, relates to what psychologists and psychotherapists call black-and-white thinking, or splitting. It’s a cognitive distortion that simplifies complex issues into opposing extremes, leaving little room for exploring the in-between nuances. While this can sometimes help us make quick decisions, it often comes at the cost of deeper understanding and analysis of complex situations.
In discussions about morality, justice, and even social issues, black-and-white thinking can limit our ability to recognise complexity. For example, in debates about race, history, or privilege, a person may insist that someone is either completely good or entirely bad, ignoring the broader societal structures at play. This type of thinking can also fuel stereotyping, where entire groups of people are judged based on fixed, absolute categories rather than individual circumstances.
When we fall into black-and-white thinking, we risk overlooking the nuances that define human experience. Ethical dilemmas, like whether PTSD should qualify for a Purple Heart, often exist in the grey areas. The more we develop the ability to tolerate complexity and uncertainty, the more we can make thoughtful, conscious moral decisions rather than reacting purely based on unconscious biases.
The Power of Curiosity: Questioning Our Own Beliefs
Understanding the role of unconscious bias in ethical decision-making requires self-reflection and curiosity. It is often not enough to accept our moral instincts at face value, and exploring why we hold certain beliefs and reactions can be of great value.
Working through our own emotional trauma and experiences allows us to:
Identify the origins of our beliefs. Are they truly ours, or were they shaped by family/societal conditioning?
Recognise biases that limit our ability to see complex issues from multiple perspectives.
Develop greater self-awareness, allowing us to approach dilemmas with curiosity rather than instinctive judgment.
By doing this inner work in Psychotherapy and Counselling, we create more space for analytical thinking and become better equipped to navigate moral complexity. Instead of reacting automatically, we can pause, reflect, and engage in deeper ethical reasoning.
For instance, rather than instinctively opposing the idea of awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers with PTSD, we might genuinely consider its implications:
What message does it send about the value of mental health?
Would it help dismantle stigma around psychological trauma?
Could there be a fair way to assess eligibility? How could we approach it?
Engaging with these questions allows for a richer, more conscious discussion, one that moves beyond simplistic notions of right and wrong and acknowledges the complexity of ethical decision-making.
Moving Beyond Black-and-White Thinking
Ethical dilemmas are rarely black and white. The more we explore the psychological forces shaping our moral judgments, the more we realise that right and wrong are often influenced by unconscious biases, personal experiences, and deeply rooted assumptions.
By cultivating curiosity and self-awareness, we open the door to more nuanced, thoughtful decision-making. Rather than clinging to rigid ideas of right and wrong, we can engage in a genuine process of reflection, considering the broader impact of our choices on ourselves, others, and society as a whole.
In the end, true ethical thinking is not about having all the right answers. It is about having the willingness to ask better, more meaningful questions.
In person and Online Counselling and Therapy