In this work, we propose Perspective Reasoning for Integrated Synthesis and Mediation (PRISM), a multiple-perspective framework for addressing persistent challenges in AI alignment such as conflicting human values and specification gaming. Grounded in cognitive science and moral psychology, PRISM organizes moral concerns into seven "basis worldviews", each hypothesized to capture a distinct dimension of human moral cognition, ranging from survival-focused reflexes through higher-order integrative perspectives. It then applies a Pareto-inspired optimization scheme to reconcile competing priorities without reducing them to a single metric. Under the assumption of reliable context validation for robust use, the framework follows a structured workflow that elicits viewpoint-specific responses, synthesizes them into a balanced outcome, and mediates remaining conflicts in a transparent and iterative manner. By referencing layered approaches to moral cognition from cognitive science, moral psychology, and neuroscience, PRISM clarifies how different moral drives interact and systematically documents and mediates ethical tradeoffs. We illustrate its efficacy through real outputs produced by a working prototype, applying PRISM to classic alignment problems in domains such as public health policy, workplace automation, and education. By anchoring AI deliberation in these human vantage points, PRISM aims to bound interpretive leaps that might otherwise drift into non-human or machine-centric territory. We briefly outline future directions, including real-world deployments and formal verifications, while maintaining the core focus on multi-perspective synthesis and conflict mediation.