The central thesis I want to discuss is that when integrated with the novel concept of the ‘moral unconscious,’ ethical intuitionism offers a comprehensive and nuanced paradigm for ethical discernment in depth psychology. Drawing upon Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory, this paper contends that the subject of depth psychology is best understood as a complex single system encompassing both conscious and unconscious domains in dialectic exchange.[1] Contrary to the limitations of rigid, universal ethical principles—which often prove inadequate due to their inability to account for unconscious motivations and emotional complexities—ethical decision-making in depth psychology requires a more agile, context-sensitive approach. ‘Agility’ can develop through various means, such as gaining experience, validating through empirical evidence, or reflecting critically. Ethical intuitionism serves as a guiding framework and an essential toolkit for developing skills such as nuanced ethical perception and the judicious balancing of ethical responsibilities. Simultaneously, the concept of the moral unconscious enriches this framework by spotlighting the emotional, heuristic, and biased foundations of intuitive judgments. To clarify, ‘cross-domain’ refers to the dynamic interplay between conscious and unconscious psychological processes.
This paper advocates for a more comprehensive approach to ethical decision-making by synthesising ethical intuitionism with the moral unconscious. To this end, scholarly discourse and empirical research in moral psychology substantiate this proposal. By integrating these two perspectives, the proposed approach aims to be more systemic, considering both the intuitive and unconscious aspects of ethical reasoning. The synthesis of ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious supplies a novel perspective on ethical decision-making, if undergirded by contemporary scholarship in moral psychology. This paper aims to contribute to ongoing ethics and moral psychology discussions by advocating for an integrated moderate cross-domain approach to intuitionism. This paper engages critically with opposing viewpoints to ensure a balanced discussion. I hope to catalyse further research into the cultivation of moral wisdom by amalgamating the insights of ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious.
Normative Ethics in Depth-Based Practice
Normative ethics—with its traditional paradigms such as virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialism—has long served as the bedrock of moral reasoning within clinical psychological practice. These frameworks offer indispensable guidelines, categorising ethical actions about goods, duties, rights, virtues, or consequential outcomes. Nonetheless, this essay argues that while normative ethics remains invaluable for structured moral reasoning, it faces certain limitations in addressing the complexities arising from depth psychology’s emphasis on non-conscious processes. Stuart Kauffman’s complexity theory, eloquently articulated in At Home in the Universe, contends that the myriad dimensions of human psychology—individual, relational, and social—may defy reduction to universal ethical principles. Kauffman elucidates human systems’ unpredictable, interconnected, and perpetually evolving nature, suggesting a requirement for an ethical approach that balances flexibility with nuance.[2] To further this argument, one might consider the principle of confidentiality. While ethically robust, it has no doubt paradoxically perpetuated psychological abuse by inhibiting necessary disclosures. Similarly, though guided by the well-intentioned principle of beneficence, therapeutic interventions have occasionally precipitated unforeseen harm. These examples clearly underscore the inherent limitations of well-intentioned universal ethical principles in addressing the context-dependent challenges that pervade depth-based practice and clinical practice.
Michel Foucault’s critique in The History of Sexuality interrogates the universality of normative ethical principles for sexuality. Foucault argues that ethical norms are inextricable from power dynamics and epistemes, or cultural matrices, undermining hopes for impartial ethical standards. This insight accentuates that ethical norms are far from static; they are subject to temporal and cultural variations, influenced by various social, political, and economic variables.[3] Given these considerations, the question arises: Can ethical particularism and universal principles coexist? To address this, one might turn to the ‘overlapping consensus’ concept from John Rawls, otherwise termed the ‘moral common ground.’ This Rawlsian concept suggests that while ethical decisions should contextualise, a minimum universal ethical code could serve as a foundational guide, reconciling ethical particularism with universal principles.[4]
Thus, while normative ethical principles offer a broad orientation, substantive ethical decision-making depends on a nuanced and reflective situational appreciation. This subtle discernment further enriches through interdisciplinary competencies, ongoing reflective practice, or heightened cultural sensitivity. Therefore, there appears to be a need for ethical discernment attuned to individual unconscious and cultural unconscious contexts—a capacity that the proposed integration of ethical intuitionism and moral unconscious may be well-positioned to provide.
Role of Unconsciousness in Ethical Intuitionism and Depth-Based Practice
This paper suggests that integrating ethical intuitionism with the moral unconscious offers a nuanced framework for ethical discernment in depth-based practice. Drawing upon seminal psychoanalytic works elucidates the indispensable role of unconscious processing in shaping ethical considerations. Freud’s magnum opus, The Interpretation of Dreams, submits that a mere fraction of our waking life is under the aegis of rational conscious thought. For some, this conceptual frame has evolved into a naturalised epistemology, wherein the non-conscious domain—though eluding immediate conscious awareness—profoundly influences our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. Freud’s deeply considered articulation of unconscious determinants supplies a Copernican moment for traditional ethical discourses entirely reliant on a purely reasonable human species.[5]
However, the complexity of evidencing non-conscious processes raises a pertinent question: How can non-consciousness generate more accessible or interpretable ethical decision-making? One might consider psychoanalytic techniques such as associative thinking, dream analysis, and the interpretation of slips and parapraxes to address this concern rationally. These methodologies serve as rational conduits for exploring unconscious processes, making its complex architecture more navigable. Nonetheless, emerging neuroscientific techniques like functional MRI offer empirical pathways for understanding non-conscious processes, strengthening the framework’s empirical grounding.
Ben Libet’s (1983) empirical research corroborates Freud’s central claim, particularly regarding unconsciousness’s influence on decision-making.[6] Libet challenges conventional notions of free will and has far-reaching implications for neuroscience and depth psychology. Libet’s research suggests that ethical frameworks which rely solely on conscious rational deliberation may possess certain limitations and may not be entirely adequate. His research, and those like it, highlight that human beings may not always make rational decisions due to a variety of factors such as cognitive biases, emotional responses, and social pressures. Therefore, it is crucial for ethical frameworks to consider the limitations of human cognition and decision-making processes, ensuring that they are effective and reliable in all circumstances. Libet’s findings may have some bearing on all those who make ethical decisions personally and professionally.
In his work, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, C.G. Jung expands the scope of unconsciousness. He theorises that the personal unconscious is not merely a repository for repressed desires but a complex structure replete with symbolic archetypes and latent predispositions emanating from a collective unconscious universally influencing psychological experiences.[7] Faith in this ethical approach may find a suitable match with modern Neo-Platonists or dogmatic scientists fixated on falsifiability.
To illustrate unconsciousness’s impact on ethical dilemmas, consider the phenomena of introjection, projection, transference, and countertransference. These unconscious processes can significantly affect the therapeutic relationship and ethical decision-making. For instance, a therapist’s unconscious countertransference may precipitate ethical lapses like boundary violations. Conversely, a client’s transference could manifest as inappropriate advances, complicating ethical considerations such as informed consent. Thus, ethical discernment in depth-based practice benefits from a complex interplay of conscious and non-conscious processes. A nuanced ethical framework, therefore, should incorporate these factors through methods like reflective practice and ongoing professional development centred on ethical intuitionism of a moral unconscious. Far from being a hindrance, the complexity of unconscious processes may embrace an underestimated source of ethical insight. Therefore, integrating ethical intuitionism with the moral unconscious offers a more robust and comprehensive ethical framework attuned to the clinical complexities of human experience.
The Moral Unconscious: A Reconsideration in Depth-Based Ethical Practice
Traditional depth psychology has often relegated unconsciousness to a realm primarily governed by amoral drives, such as the sexual and death instincts. This paper suggests that such a perspective risks being overly reductive and may have limitations. It introduces and elaborates upon the concept of a ‘moral unconscious,’ a dimension that is not merely ancillary but central to ethical discernment in depth-based practice. This nuanced understanding is not a mere theoretical proposition; it substantiates a growing body of scholarship exploring unconsciousness’s moral facets. In his excellent work The Philosophy of Moral Development, Lawrence Kohlberg posits that unconscious cognitive structures significantly shape moral reasoning. He delineates various stages of moral development, arguing persuasively that these are not solely the products of conscious deliberation but ingrained in our unconscious cognitive frameworks.[8] This perspective finds complementary support in Jonathan Haidt’s social intuitionist model, as articulated in The Righteous Mind. Haidt elucidates how rapid, automatic moral intuitions often precede and inform slower, conscious moral reasoning. He introduces the phenomenon of ‘moral dumbfounding,’ where individuals are at a loss to articulate the reasoning behind their moral judgments, thereby highlighting the role of unconsciousness in ethical discernment.[9]
To further strengthen the argument for the moral unconscious, it is imperative to discuss specific methodologies that could make this elusive domain more accessible for ethical decision-making. Psychoanalytic techniques such as associative thinking, dream analysis, and even more contemporary methods like Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) or Mentalisation-based techniques could serve as valuable tools for excavating the moral unconscious. These methods offer a window into non-conscious processes and provide a structured framework for interpreting its contents, making it a more reliable source of ethical guidance.
Donald Carveth presents an alternative perspective that deviates from conventional depth-based understandings of the conscience and the superego. His unique approach provides valuable insights that could lead to a more nuanced comprehension of these concepts. By considering Carveth’s ideas, we may be able to refine and improve our understanding of these crucial elements of the human psyche. In The Immoral Superego, Carveth provocatively argues that the superego is not invariably a moral agency; it can manifest as ‘immoral’ or sadistic, reflecting internalised societal prejudices and taboos. He posits that the conscience, distinct from the superego, serves as a genuinely moral and ethical guide. This distinction is not merely academic; it has profound implications for clinical practice. It suggests clinicians ought to attune to the ‘immoral’ superego and the ‘moral’ conscience when navigating the ethical dilemmas intrinsic to their work.[10]
Ernest Wallwork’s influential work on Psychoanalysis and Ethics has been further developed by Robert Drozek, who argues that a depth-based clinician’s primary ethical responsibility is to balance conscious and unconscious aspects of their patient’s experience.[11] The clinician must comprehensively understand the patient’s subjective experience to provide effective treatment; balancing conscious and unconscious aspects is a delicate and nuanced process that requires careful attention and consideration. The clinician must avoid prioritising one and maintain simultaneous attentiveness across domains to meet the patient’s needs while respecting their autonomy and integrity. Drozek builds on Wallwork’s suggestion that psychoanalytic-based ethics requires a dialectical approach to depth-based practice in Psychoanalysis as an Ethical Process. Nonetheless, Drozek situates his arguments focus on relational psychoanalysis as an inherently ethical process that seeks to uncover a collaboration between conscious insight and latent unconscious desires or significances, clinician, and client. According to Drozek, this relational dialectic anchors in the concept of an other-regarding or relational sense of the work of love and human dignity. This relational emphasis is the primary ethical and technical foundation of depth-based healing.[12]
While these theoretical frameworks provide a rational foundation for understanding the moral unconscious, empirical validation is indispensable. Future research could focus on longitudinal studies that track the development of ethical intuitions in clinicians over time, thereby offering invaluable insights into how the moral unconscious can cultivate and harness ethical decision-making. Such empirical endeavours would validate the theoretical constructs and provide a pathway for their practical application, thereby enriching our understanding of depth-based ethics. Thus, this section contends that an ethical framework for depth-based practice that relies solely on conscious reasoning is not just incomplete but perilously inadequate. The moral unconscious enriches our ethical understanding and offers a more comprehensive and nuanced framework for ethical decision-making. It is incumbent upon practitioners to recognise the limitations of conscious reasoning alone and to integrate an understanding of the moral unconscious into their ethical frameworks. This integration mitigates the risks associated with an overly conscious approach and provides a more robust ethical framework that accounts for the complexities and subtleties inherent in depth-based practice.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals: Navigating the Complex Terrain of Ethical Intuitionism and the Moral Unconscious
This section aims to critically engage with three primary counterarguments levelled against the synthesis of ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious within depth psychology. To enhance the persuasiveness of the paper’s central argument, it would be beneficial to consider addressing and providing well-crafted rebuttals to obvious counterarguments that arise. The first counterargument posits that ethical intuitionism is fraught with excessive subjectivity and bias, compromising the impartiality or universality often considered the hallmarks of ethical decision-making. Isaiah Berlin’s essay, Two Concepts of Liberty, invokes the argument that the human condition necessitates a degree of value pluralism. Berlin’s argument acknowledges that multiple ethical systems can coexist, each with merits and limitations.[13] While ethical intuitionism arguably suffers from subjectivity, this paper contends that it is an asset. Subjectivity allows for a nuanced sensitivity to context that rigid ethical systems often fail to capture. However, it is crucial to note that this subjectivity gains refinement through ethical education and reflective practice. Thus, the risks of ethical relativism, a common critique of subjectivity mitigates, strengthening the framework’s overall robustness.
The second counterargument contends that normative ethics, with its universal principles, is an indispensable guideline for ethical decision-making. Critics argue that a minimum universal ethical code is essential for any sustainable ethical framework. This paper counters by invoking Jonathan Dancy’s Ethics Without Principles, which advocates for ethical particularism. Dancy suggests that ethical decisions should be contextual rather than based on universal principles.[14] The concept of ‘overlapping consensus’ is a key element in reconciling ethical particularism with universal principles, as proposed by the philosopher John Rawls. By introducing this concept, ethical intuitionism gains a more nuanced approach to ethical discernment that is sensitive to the context. This approach recognises that ethical principles apply differently in different situations to ensure that ethical decisions are made in the best interests of individuals and society. The ‘overlapping consensus’ approach is particularly useful in situations where there is no clear-cut answer or where ethical principles may appear to be in conflict. By recognising the importance of context and taking a nuanced approach to ethical decision-making, ethical intuitionism provides a valuable tool for navigating complex ethical issues.
Last, critics argue that unconsciousness is too vast, complex, and inaccessible to offer practical ethical guidance. They question how unconsciousness, much of which remains beyond our reach, might reach reliable incorporation into an ethical framework. To address this concern, one may return to Kauffman’s At Home in the Universe, which employs complexity theory to argue that complex systems possess a form of order arising from their inherent dynamism and unpredictability. Far from being a hindrance, the complexity of unconscious processes should be embraced as an underestimated source of ethical insight.2 Specific psychoanalytic techniques like associative thinking, attachment-based techniques, or mentalisation-based techniques are proposed to make unconsciousness more accessible for ethical decision-making.
This paper aims to provide a more nuanced and robust framework for ethical discernment in depth psychology by critically engaging with these counterarguments. The counterarguments serve not as roadblocks but stepping stones, each leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate symbiosis between ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious.
Conclusion
In the preceding sections, I have explored the confluence of ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious as indispensable elements for constructing a more comprehensive ethical framework within depth psychology. The synthesis of these two paradigms does more than merely fill the gaps left by each; it engenders a genuinely integrative form of ethical discernment. This proposed framework finds intellectual kinship with David Ross’s moral pluralism and Thomas Nagel’s meta-ethical contextualism, both of which advocate for recognising multiple valid ethical perspectives.[15] However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this framework is not without its limitations and assumptions, which warrant further scrutiny and critical engagement. For instance, the subjectivity inherent in ethical intuitionism, while allowing for a nuanced understanding of ethical dilemmas, could potentially lead to jejune literalism or the incoherence of ethical relativism. This concern necessitates a deeper exploration into how ethical education and reflective practice can refine one’s intuitions, thereby mitigating the risks of subjectivity.
Moreover, the paper has endeavoured to align its thesis with empirically grounded insights, laying the groundwork for future research to further integrate ethical intuitionism and the moral unconscious. Such research promises to enrich our understanding of depth-based ethics by offering empirically substantiated pathways for cultivating moral wisdom. It is imperative to outline potential empirical studies that could validate this framework, such as longitudinal studies on clinicians or experimental setups mimicking ethical dilemmas in a controlled environment. The paper also acknowledges the indispensability of universal ethical principles, raising whether ethical particularism and universal principles coexist. To that end, Rawls’ ‘overlapping consensus’ concept aims to reconcile disparate ethical paradigms.
Further, one should consider the practical implications of this framework for clinicians and patients. Ethical discernment in depth-based practice is a complex interplay of conscious and non-conscious processes. Therefore, clinician’s attunement to this interconnection between conceptual and ethical skills and the rich content that emerges from the dialectic interplay between the conscious and unconscious domains.[16]
At this psychosocial and intellectual Rubicon, the ethical landscape of depth psychology is once again an opportunity for meaningful exploration. This paper serves as a clarion call for a renewed focus on the close interconnection between conceptual and ethical skills; it contributes a novel layer to the ongoing scholarly discourse on a multi-layered, evidence-based ethical process that is both intellectually rigorous and deeply attuned to the clinical complexities of human experience.
Bibliography
The bibliography indicates the seminal works, empirical studies, and theoretical frameworks that have substantively informed the arguments and perspectives delineated in this paper. The bibliography is organised into thematic categories to facilitate ease of navigation and underscore the interdisciplinary nature of the inquiry.
Historical Perspectives on Psychoanalysis
Freud, S. (1953): ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’ is the cornerstone of psychoanalytic theory. Edited and translated by J. Strachey, this work, originally published in 1900, remains indispensable for understanding unconsciousness. Hogarth Press.
Jung, C. G. (1969): ‘The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious,’ originally published in 1959, expands the scope of unconsciousness beyond Freudian theory. Edited by H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire, and translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press.
Wallwork, E. (1991): ‘Psychoanalysis and Ethics’ offers a critical examination of the cross-domain ethical dimensions in psychoanalytic practice. Vale University Press.
Szasz, T.S. (1974/1988): ‘The Ethics of Psychoanalysis’ provides a provocative critique of neutrality and medicalisation on ethical considerations in psychoanalytic theory. Basic Books.
Societal Influences on Psychoanalysis
Lasch, C. (1979): ‘The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’ investigates the prevailing societal factors influencing psychoanalytic practice. W.W. Norton & Company.
Foucault, M. (1978): ‘The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction’ critically interrogates the societal norms that continue to shape psychoanalytic ethics. Pantheon.
Greene, J. D. (2013): ‘Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them’ explores the emotional underpinnings of moral decision-making. Penguin Books.
Counterarguments and Alternative Viewpoints
Barnett, L. (2007): ‘You Ought To! A Psychoanalytic Study of the Superego and Conscience’ provides a nuanced understanding of the superego’s role in ethical considerations. Karnac Books.
Reiner, A. (2009): ‘The Quest for Conscience and the Birth of the Mind’ offers an alternative viewpoint on the origins of ethical thinking. Palgrave Macmillan.
Carveth, D. (2013): ‘The Immoral Superego: Conscience as the Fourth Element in the Structural Theory of the Mind’ challenges conventional psychoanalytic perspectives on the conscience and the superego. Psychoanalytic Review.
Contemporary Relevance and Clinical Practice
Hughes, J. (2008): ‘Guilt and Its Vicissitudes: Psychoanalytic Reflections on Morality’ enquires into the emotional complexities of ethical considerations in psychoanalytic practice. Routledge.
Akhtar, S. (Ed.). (2013): ‘Guilt: Origins, Manifestations, and Management’ offers a comprehensive overview of guilt in psychoanalytic theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Moral Psychology and Ethics
Moore, G.E. (1993): ‘Principia Ethica,’ originally published in 1903, is a foundational text in ethical philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Ross, D. (2002): ‘The Right and the Good,’ originally published in 1930, offers a pluralistic approach to ethics. Edited by Philip Stratton-Lake. Oxford University Press.
Haidt, J. (2012): ‘The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion’ explores the intuitive basis of moral judgments. Pantheon.
Future Trajectories and Unanswered Questions
Frattaroli, E. (2013): ‘Reflections on the Absence of Morality in Psychoanalytic Theory’ calls for a renewed focus on ethical considerations in psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalytic Psychology.
Rangell, L. (1980): ‘The Mind of Watergate: An Exploration of the Compromise of Integrity’ offers a psychoanalytic perspective on ethical lapses in public life. W.W. Norton & Company.
[1] Please see von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
[2] Please see Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organisation and complexity. Oxford University Press.
[3] Please see Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume I: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Vintage Books.
[4] Please see Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
[5] Please see Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (A. A. Brill, Trans.). The Macmillan Company.
[6] Please see Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(3), 623-642. Also see Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H. J., & Haynes, J. D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11(5), 543-545. This study expanded on Libet’s work by using more advanced neuroimaging techniques to predict a participant’s choice even before they were aware of it. Also see Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. MIT press. Wegner’s book delves into the psychology behind the feeling of ‘will,’ arguing that our sense of voluntary action is often an illusion.
[7] Please see Jung, C.G. (1959). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (2nd ed.). (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton University Press.
[8] Please see Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row.
[9] Please see Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage Books.
[10] Please see Carveth, D.L. (2013). The immoral superego: Conscience as the fourth element in the structural theory of the mind. Psychoanalytic Review, 100(2), 253-283.
[11] Please see Wallwork, E. (1991). Psychoanalysis and Ethics. Yale University Press.
[12] Please see Drozek, R. P. (2019). Psychoanalysis as an Ethical Process. Routledge.
[13] Please see Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty (pp. 118-172). Oxford University Press.
[14] Please see Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford University Press.
[15] Please see Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford University Press. Also see Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
[16] Please see Wadey, P. (12th October 2023). https://w4dey.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/beyond-normative-ethics-toward-an-ethical-intuitionism-for-psychoanalysis/
Reflections from a therapy room 
Leave a comment