Ethical Dissonance and Ethical Divide on Enhancers My quick search in the academic journals and internet literature failed to provide a good definition of ethical dissonance that has been adopted or shared by several academic professions. However, a dictionary definition of dissonance is “lack of agreement” and, in music, dissonance means a “combination of musical notes that sound harsh together” (Hornby 424). Thus, this writer believes that it is viable to assert that within context of the article by Gary Stix, the ethical dissonance discussed in the article refers to the divergence or variety of views on whether it is alright or ethical for medical professionals to prescribe drugs claiming to have the ability to enhance mental or physical capacities. 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