Piety Towards Parents: Islamic Perspective (2)

"A store manager overheard one of his salesmen talking to a customer. 'No, sir,' said the salesman. 'We haven’t had any for a while, and it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting any soon.'

The manager was horrifed and immediately called the salesman over to him. 'Don’t you ever tell a customer we’re out of anything! Now, what did he want?'

'Rain,' answered the salesman.

"And now, let's continue with our discussion," Wulandari carried on.

"Allah says,

يَسْـَٔلُوْنَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُوْنَ ۗ قُلْ مَآ اَنْفَقْتُمْ مِّنْ خَيْرٍ فَلِلْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْاَقْرَبِيْنَ وَالْيَتٰمٰى وَالْمَسٰكِيْنِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيْلِ ۗ وَمَا تَفْعَلُوْا مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ بِهٖ عَلِيْمٌ

'They ask you, [O Muḥammad], what they should spend. Say, 'Whatever you spend of good is [to be] for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allāh is Knowing of it.'' [QS. Al-Baqarah (2):215]

Allah mentioned parents ahead of kindred, orphans, the poor, and the wayfarers, when talking about giving charities (and those supposed to receive them). It was narrated that Tariq Al-Muharibi said, 'We came to Al-Madinah and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was standing on the Minbar addressing the people and saying,

يَدُ الْمُعْطِي الْعُلْيَا وَابْدَأْ بِمَنْ تَعُولُ أُمَّكَ وَأَبَاكَ وَأُخْتَكَ وَأَخَاكَ ثُمَّ أَدْنَاكَ أَدْنَاكَ

'The hand which gives is the upper hand. Start with those for whom you are responsible; your mother, your father, your sister, your brother, then the next closest, and the next closest.' [Sunan An-Nasa'i; Sahih]

Dutifulness to parents is one of the Prophets' noted characteristics. Allah says, talking about Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary), alaihissalam. Isa said, 'And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.' [QS. Maryam (19):32]. Allah also says—talking about— Prophet Ibrahim, alaihissalam, who said, 'Our Lord, forgive me and my parents and the believers the Day the account is established.' [QS. Ibrahim (14):41]. And about Prophet Sulayman (Solomon), alaihissalam, who said, '... My Lord, enable me1 to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do righteousness of which You approve. And admit me by Your mercy into [the ranks of] Your righteous servants.' [QS. An-Naml (27):19]. And about Prophet Nuh (Noah), who said, 'My Lord, forgive me and my parents and whoever enters my house a believer and the believing men and believing women. And do not increase the wrongdoers except in destruction.' [QS. Nuh (71):28]. And about Prophet Isma'il, alaihissalam, when he was told by his father about his father's dream and to think about it, he said, 'O' my father! Do as you are commanded, Insha' Allah [if Allah so wills], you shall find me of as-sabirin.' [QS. As-Saffat (37):102]. And about Prophet Yahya (John), alaihissalam, Allah says about him, '... and he was fearing of Allah And dutiful to his parents, and he was not a disobedient tyrant.' [QS. Maryam (19):13-14].

Dutifulness to parents admits one to Paradise, whereas undutifulness leads to Hell-fire. Abu Hurayra, rahiyallahu 'anhu, reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'May his nose be dusted (i.e. may he be disgraced), may his nose be dusted, may his nose be dusted.' They said, 'Messenger of Allah, who?' He said, 'The one who lives to see his parents or one of them in old age, and (still) enters the Fire.' [Al-Adab Al-Mufrad; Sahih by Al-Alabni]

Allah's Pleasure comes through the parents' pleasure and His Anger comes through their anger. The Prophet (ﷺ) said,

رِضَى الرَّبِّ فِي رِضَى الوَالِدِ، وَسَخَطُ الرَّبِّ فِي سَخَطِ الْوَالِدِ

'Allah's pleasure is in the parents' pleasure (i.e., the latter causes the former), and His anger is in their anger.' [Jami' at-Tirmidhi; Hasan]

Dutifulness to parents precedes fighting in Allah's cause (jihad). 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, radhiyallahu 'anhu, reported, 'I asked Allah's Messenger about the best deed.' He (ﷺ) said, 'Performing prayers at their fixed times.' I said, ''Then what comes next?' He (ﷺ) said, 'Being dutiful to (one's) parents.' I said, 'Then what is next?' He

said: 'Fighting in Allah's cause.'' [The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned dutifulness to parents just after performing prayers, and before Jihad (fighting in Allah's cause].

In another hadith, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, radhiyallahu 'anhu, reported, 'A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) to ask him his permission to participate in Jihad (fighting in Allah's cause). He (ﷺ) said, 'Are your parents alive?' The man replied in the affirmative. Then he said, 'Then exert yourself in their service.' [Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

Dutifulness to parents is of the righteous deeds one can invoke Allah with. Al-Bukhari in his Sahihah recorded,

عن عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ انْطَلَقَ ثَلاثَةُ رَهْطٍ مِمَّنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ حَتَّى أَوَوْا الْمَبِيتَ إِلَى غَارٍ فَدَخَلُوهُ فَانْحَدَرَتْ صَخْرَةٌ مِنْ الْجَبَلِ فَسَدَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ الْغَارَ فَقَالُوا إِنَّهُ لا يُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ هَذِهِ الصَّخْرَةِ إِلا أَنْ تَدْعُوا اللَّهَ بِصَالِحِ أَعْمَالِكُمْ ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنْهُمْ اللَّهُمَّ كَانَ لِي أَبَوَانِ شَيْخَانِ كَبِيرَانِ وَكُنْتُ لا أَغْبِقُ – شُرْب الْعَشِيّ – قَبْلَهُمَا أَهْلا وَلا مَالا فَنَأَى بِي فِي طَلَبِ شَيْءٍ يَوْمًا فَلَمْ أُرِحْ عَلَيْهِمَا حَتَّى نَامَا فَحَلَبْتُ لَهُمَا غَبُوقَهُمَا فَوَجَدْتُهُمَا نَائِمَيْنِ وَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أَغْبِقَ قَبْلَهُمَا أَهْلا أَوْ مَالا فَلَبِثْتُ وَالْقَدَحُ عَلَى يَدَيَّ أَنْتَظِرُ اسْتِيقَاظَهُمَا ُ [َ فَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أُوقِظَهُمَا وَالصِّبْيَةُ يَتَضَاغَوْنَ – الصِّيَاح بِبُكَاء بسبب الجوع – عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ فَلَمْ يَزَلْ ذَلِكَ دَأْبِي وَدَأْبَهُمَا حَتَّى طَلَعَ الْفَجْرُ ] حَتَّى بَرَقَ الْفَجْر فَاسْتَيْقَظَا فَشَرِبَا غَبُوقَهُمَا اللَّهُمَّ إِنْ كُنْتُ فَعَلْتُ ذَلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ وَجْهِكَ فَفَرِّجْ عَنَّا مَا نَحْنُ فِيهِ مِنْ هَذِهِ الصَّخْرَةِ فَانْفَرَجَتْ شَيْئًا لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ الْخُرُوج

قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَقَالَ الآخَرُ اللَّهُمَّ كَانَتْ لِي بِنْتُ عَمٍّ كَانَتْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيَّ [ كُنْتُ أُحِبُّ امْرَأَةً مِنْ بَنَاتِ عَمِّي كَأَشَدِّ مَا يُحِبُّ الرَّجُلُ النِّسَاءَ ] فَأَرَدْتُهَا عَنْ نَفْسِهَا فَامْتَنَعَتْ مِنِّي حَتَّى أَلَمَّتْ بِهَا سَنَةٌ مِنْ السِّنِينَ فَجَاءَتْنِي [ فَقَالَتْ لا تَنَالُ ذَلِكَ مِنْهَا حَتَّى تُعْطِيَهَا مِائَةَ دِينَارٍ فَسَعَيْتُ فِيهَا حَتَّى جَمَعْتُهَا ] فَأَعْطَيْتُهَا عِشْرِينَ وَمِائَةَ دِينَارٍ عَلَى أَنْ تُخَلِّيَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ نَفْسِهَا فَفَعَلَتْ حَتَّى إِذَا قَدَرْتُ عَلَيْهَا قَالَتْ لا أُحِلُّ لَكَ أَنْ تَفُضَّ الْخَاتَمَ إِلا بِحَقِّهِ [قَالَتْ اتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَلا تَفُضَّ الْخَاتَمَ إِلا بِحَقِّهِ ] فَتَحَرَّجْتُ مِنْ الْوُقُوعِ عَلَيْهَا فَانْصَرَفْتُ عَنْهَا [ فَقُمْتُ وَتَرَكْتُهَا] وَهِيَ أَحَبُّ النَّاسِ إِلَيَّ وَتَرَكْتُ الذَّهَبَ الَّذِي أَعْطَيْتُهَا اللَّهُمَّ إِنْ كُنْتُ فَعَلْتُ ابْتِغَاءَ وَجْهِكَ فَافْرُجْ عَنَّا مَا نَحْنُ فِيهِ فَانْفَرَجَتْ الصَّخْرَةُ [فَفَرَجَ عَنْهُمْ الثُّلُثَيْنِ ] غَيْرَ أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ الْخُرُوجَ مِنْهَا

قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَقَالَ الثَّالِثُ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي اسْتَأْجَرْتُ أُجَرَاءَ فَأَعْطَيْتُهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ ( أَيْ : ثَمَنه) غَيْرَ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ تَرَكَ الَّذِي لَهُ وَذَهَبَ فَثَمَّرْتُ أَجْرَهُ حَتَّى كَثُرَتْ مِنْهُ الأَمْوَالُ فَجَاءَنِي بَعْدَ حِينٍ فَقَالَ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ أَدِّ إِلَيَّ أَجْرِي فَقُلْتُ لَهُ كُلُّ مَا تَرَى مِنْ أَجْرِكَ مِنْ الإِبِلِ وَالْبَقَرِ وَالْغَنَمِ وَالرَّقِيقِ فَقَالَ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ لا تَسْتَهْزِئُ بِي فَقُلْتُ إِنِّي لا أَسْتَهْزِئُ بِكَ فَأَخَذَهُ كُلَّهُ فَاسْتَاقَهُ فَلَمْ يَتْرُكْ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا اللَّهُمَّ فَإِنْ كُنْتُ فَعَلْتُ ذَلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ وَجْهِكَ فَافْرُجْ عَنَّا مَا نَحْنُ فِيهِ فَانْفَرَجَتْ الصَّخْرَةُ فَخَرَجُوا يَمْشُونَ

'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, radhiyallahu 'anhu, narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Once upon a time, three men were walking and a heavy rain overtook them. They reached and entered a cave in a mountain for shelter. A big rock rolled down and closed the mouth of the cave.

They said to one another, 'Nothing could save you from this rock, but to invoke Allah by giving reference to the righteous deeds which you have

done, for Allah's sake only.' So, one of them said, 'O' Allah! I had old parents (whom I used to provide with milk first), and I never provided my family (wife and children) with milk before them. One day, by chance, I was delayed, and I came late (at night) after they had slept. I milked the sheep and took the milk to them, but I found them sleeping. I disliked providing my family with milk before them. So, I waited for them with the bowl of milk in my hand, and I kept waiting for them to get up, till the day dawned. Then, they got up and drank their milk. O Allah! If I did that for Your sake only, please relieve us from this critical situation caused by this rock.' So the rock shifted a little, but they could not get out. The Prophet (ﷺ) added that the second man said, 'O' Allah! I had a cousin who was the dearest ofall people to me, and I wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, but she refused. She later asked for hundred dinars to meet some of her indispensable needs. I then collected hundred dinars and went to her and gave it to her. I then sat on her legs to fulfill my desire, at that moment she said, 'O' Slave of Allah! Fear Allah and do not break the seal without right, that is, sex is valid only after legitimate marriage.' So, I left her. O' Allah, If I did that for Your sake only, please relieve us from the present calamity.' So, the rock shifted a little more, but still they could not get out of there. The Prophet (ﷺ) added that thereafter the third man said, 'O' Allah! I employed few labourers and I paid them their wages with the exception of one man, who did not take his wages and went away. I invested his wages and I got much property thereby. After sometime, he came back and said to me, 'O' Allah's slave! Pay me my wages.' I said to him, 'All the camels, cows, sheep, and slaves you see there, are yours.' He said, 'O' Allah's slave! Don't mock at me.' I said, 'I am not mocking at you.' So he took the entire herd and drove them away and left nothing. O' Allah! If I did that for Your sake only, please relieve us from the present suffering.' So, the rock shifted completely and they got out, walking.'

Parents' pleasure precedes the wife's pleasure. lbn 'Umar, radhiyallahu 'anhuma, said, 'I married a woman whom I loved much, but 'Umar ('Umar ibn al-Khattab, radhiyallahu 'anhu, his father) hated her and commanded me to divorce her, but I refused. Then he went to the

Prophet (ﷺ) and told him the matter.' The Prophet (ﷺ) said to me, 'Divorce her.'

Ibn Hibban narrated in his Sahih, 'A man came to Abu ad-Darda' and said, 'My father kept asking me to get married, till I did, and now he orders me to divorce my wife.' Abu adDarda' said, 'I will neither advise you to be undutiful to your parents, nor will I command you to divorce your wife. But I will tell you something I heard from the Prophet (ﷺ). I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) says, 'The parents are the middle door of Paradise; you could either lose it or win it.'

Parents' invocations are answerable, Abu Hurayrah, radhiyallahu 'anhu, related that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Three (kinds of) invocations are certainly answered: the invocation of the parent for or against his son (or daughter), the invocation of the traveller and the invocation of the oppressed.'

Finally, you now know many of the Qur'anic verses that speak of the obligations of being dutiful to one's parents, and treating them kindly, and the verses that describe the Prophets' kindness towards their parents and how they invoked Allah for their good. And you know now, through the Qur'anic verses and the hadiths, that dutifulness to parents

is always joined with worshipping Allah. Dutifulness to parents admits one to Paradise, for Allah's pleasure comes from parents' pleasure, and Allah's anger comes from parents' anger. Besides, undutifulness to parents is forbidden as stated in the Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah.

Undutifulness to parents is also considered one ofthe greatest sins against which Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) warned us. Being kind to them admits us to Paradise by Allah's Will, for Paradise lies under their feet.

We also knew that Parents' invocations are certainly answered, and the parents' favour is very great on us. The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade us from cursing or abusing our parents, and this is done by abstaining from abusing or cursing others' parents. The Prophet (ﷺ) affirmed that we

are of our parents' earnings, and that we, ourselves, belong to them, as well as our properties. The Prophet (ﷺ) also commanded us to be dutiful to our parents after their death and that is done by keeping good relation with their beloved ones.

From all these, we learned from the Qur'anic verses and the Prophetic hadiths, that dutifulness to paren°ts is of paramount importance. Though even one verse commanding us to be dutiful to our parents, would suffice us and urge us to do so. How is the case then, when there are many verses and Prophetic hadiths concerning this matter?

You should be dutiful to your parents and behave towards them as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and the Prophet (ﷺ), enjoined on you; i.e., to behave well, giving them their rights, so that you could gain happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. And Allah knows best."

The end of the night had arrived, Wulandari had to leave while chanting,

Bun, aku masih tak mengerti banyak hal

[Mom, I still don't understand a lot of things]

Semuanya berenang di kepala

[Everything is swimming in the head]

Dan kau dan semua yang kau tahu tentangnya

[And you and everything you know about it]

Menjadi jawab saat ku bertanya **)

[Become the answer when I was inquiring]

Citations & References:

- Nidham Sakkajh, Dutifulness to Parents: In the Light of the Holy Qur'an and the Authentic Sunnah, translated by iman Zakariya Abu Ghazi, 2004, IIPH
- Ibn Al-Jawzi, At Their Feet: Piety Towards Parents, 2016, Dar as-Sunnah Publishers
*) "Like my Father" written by Wayne Andrew Wilkins & Jacqueline Miskanic
**) "Bertaut" written by Nadin Amizah, Mikha Angelo Brahmantyo & Zulqi L. Ramandha

[Session 1]

Bahasa

Piety Towards Parents: Islamic Perspective (1)

"On the way to preschool, the doctor let his daughter look at his stethoscope. His little daughter picked it up and began playing with it. This thrilled the father as he thought, 'Perhaps one day she will follow in my footsteps and become a doctor.'

But then he heard her as she spoke into the instrument, 'Welcome to McDonald’s. May I take your order?'" said Wulandari—Javanese, meaning the round mooon or full moon—as she turned her cheerful face upon mother earth below, after saying Basmalah and greeting with salaam.

"An obligation in all revealed religions is the commandment to the people to be kind and loyal to parents," Wulandari went on. "Islam has further emphasized obedience to parents as Allah's command. Is it not the right of the parents, who take the child with care from childhood to adulthood, that their goodness be rewarded? One should respect the parents, love them and care for them when they grow old and need kindness. In other words, he should help them in the same way a child needs help. Leaming their rights and consciously seeking their pleasure is not only a divine order, but also an act of worship and a human attribute. 

There are many commandments in the Quran that relate to our treatment of our parents. Allah says,

وَقَضٰى رَبُّكَ اَلَّا تَعْبُدُوْٓا اِلَّآ اِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ اِحْسٰنًاۗ اِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ اَحَدُهُمَآ اَوْ كِلٰهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَّهُمَآ اُفٍّ وَّلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَّهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيْمًا

وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ وَقُلْ رَّبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيٰنِيْ صَغِيْرًاۗ

رَبُّكُمْ اَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِيْ نُفُوْسِكُمْ ۗاِنْ تَكُوْنُوْا صٰلِحِيْنَ فَاِنَّهٗ كَانَ لِلْاَوَّابِيْنَ غَفُوْرًا

'And your Lord has decreed that you worship not except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], 'uff, [an expression of disapproval or irritation] and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.

And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, "My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] small.'

Your Lord is most knowing of what is within yourselves. If you should be righteous [in intention] - then indeed He is ever, to the often returning [to Him], Forgiving [for those who intend righteousness, hastening to repent from sins and errors committed through human weakness, Allah promises forgiveness].' [QS. Al-Isra (17):23-25]

Dutifulness to parents follows immediately after worshipping Allah. Undutifulness to parents is forbidden because it is a grave sin. Abu Bakrah, radhoyallahu 'anhu, related that the Prophet (ﷺ) said,

ألا أنبئكم بأكبر الكبائر ثلاثا ؟ قلنا بلى يا رسول الله قال الإشراك بالله وعقوق الوالدين ، وكان متكئا فجلس فقال : ألا وقول الزور وشهادة الزور ، فما زال يكررها حتى قلنا ليته سكت

''Should I inform you about the greatest ofthe great sins?' They said, 'Yes, O' Allah's Messenger.' He (ﷺ) said, 'To associate and co-worship others with Allah and to be undutiful to one's parents.' The Prophet (ﷺ) then sat (straight) after he had been reclining and said: 'And I warn you against giving a false statement,' and he kept saying that till we wished that he stopped [That is: 'We wished that he (ﷺ) stopped saying these words out of compassion for him, since we saw signs of anger on his face].' [Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

After Allah, there is no one who has realized a greater favour to any person than his own , parents. His mother bore him in extreme difficulty while cartydng him, and at the time of giving birth she went through great hardship and trouble. She did her best in bringing him up and spent S'leepless nights tending to him ignoring all her other wants and desires. She gave preference to him over herself each and every time.

His father, in addition to being a cause for his existence, also gave him love, compassion and brought him up by working hard and spending on him.Thus a logical person knows the right of the one who renders a favour to him and tries to repay such favour.

Not to recognise the right of the one who effects a favour is from the most despicable quality, especially if the person denies such a right and furthermore, repays it with evil.

A person who is dutiful and good to his parents should know that no matter how good he is to them he can never repay or thank them (for their rights and privileges).

The closeness of relatives can be likened to the closeness of parents to a child and a person should not be neglectful of such rights.

The Quran also mentions what is permissible and what is not in relation to obedience to parents. Allah says,

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْاِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِۚ حَمَلَتْهُ اُمُّهٗ وَهْنًا عَلٰى وَهْنٍ وَّفِصَالُهٗ فِيْ عَامَيْنِ اَنِ اشْكُرْ لِيْ وَلِوَالِدَيْكَۗ اِلَيَّ الْمَصِيْرُ

وَاِنْ جَاهَدٰكَ عَلٰٓى اَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِيْ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهٖ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِى الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوْفًا ۖوَّاتَّبِعْ سَبِيْلَ مَنْ اَنَابَ اِلَيَّۚ ثُمَّ اِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَاُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُوْنَ

'And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents. His mother carried him, [increasing her] in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Be grateful to Me and to your parents; to Me is the [final] destination.

But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge [i.e., no knowledge of its divinity. There can be no knowledge about something which is non-existent or untrue], do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do.' [QS. Luqman (31):14-15]

Mother has a right which equals three folds that of the father, and this is due to the hardship the mother faces during pregnancy, delivery, and fostering the child. Then after birth, the father shares her the responsibility of raising the child.

The rights of parents (haqq al-walidayn) are made clear in the verse mentioned, in which Allah paired being thankful to Him with being thankful to parents. Showing birr [is used todescribe righteousness,piety, reverence, devoutoess and kindness among other things] to them is by obeying whatever they ask of you and tell you to do, as long as it is not something forbidden. Their instructions should be given preference over optional (nawafil) prayers. Stay away from what they prohibit you. spend on them. Seek out for the things they like. Serve them excessively. Observe respect and dignity with them. Don’t raise your voice or stare at them. Don’t call them by their names.Walk behind them. Be patient over anything they do that you dislike.

Also, Allah says,

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْاِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ حُسْنًا ۗوَاِنْ جَاهَدٰكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِيْ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهٖ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا ۗاِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَاُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُوْنَ

'And We have enjoined upon man goodness to parents. But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them. To Me is your return, and I will inform you about what you used to do.' [QS. Al-'Ankabut [29]:8]

Allah says,

وَوَصَّيْنَا الْاِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ اِحْسَانًا ۗحَمَلَتْهُ اُمُّهٗ كُرْهًا وَّوَضَعَتْهُ كُرْهًا ۗوَحَمْلُهٗ وَفِصٰلُهٗ ثَلٰثُوْنَ شَهْرًا ۗحَتّٰىٓ اِذَا بَلَغَ اَشُدَّهٗ وَبَلَغَ اَرْبَعِيْنَ سَنَةًۙ قَالَ رَبِّ اَوْزِعْنِيْٓ اَنْ اَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِيْٓ اَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلٰى وَالِدَيَّ وَاَنْ اَعْمَلَ صَالِحًا تَرْضٰىهُ وَاَصْلِحْ لِيْ فِيْ ذُرِّيَّتِيْۗ اِنِّيْ تُبْتُ اِلَيْكَ وَاِنِّيْ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِيْنَ

اُولٰۤىِٕكَ الَّذِيْنَ نَتَقَبَّلُ عَنْهُمْ اَحْسَنَ مَا عَمِلُوْا وَنَتَجَاوَزُ عَنْ سَيِّاٰتِهِمْ فِيْٓ اَصْحٰبِ الْجَنَّةِۗ وَعْدَ الصِّدْقِ الَّذِيْ كَانُوْا يُوْعَدُوْنَ

وَالَّذِيْ قَالَ لِوَالِدَيْهِ اُفٍّ لَّكُمَآ اَتَعِدَانِنِيْٓ اَنْ اُخْرَجَ وَقَدْ خَلَتِ الْقُرُوْنُ مِنْ قَبْلِيْۚ وَهُمَا يَسْتَغِيْثٰنِ اللّٰهَ وَيْلَكَ اٰمِنْ ۖاِنَّ وَعْدَ اللّٰهِ حَقٌّۚ فَيَقُوْلُ مَا هٰذَآ اِلَّآ اَسَاطِيْرُ الْاَوَّلِيْنَ

اُولٰۤىِٕكَ الَّذِيْنَ حَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقَوْلُ فِيْٓ اُمَمٍ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْاِنْسِ ۗاِنَّهُمْ كَانُوْا خٰسِرِيْنَ

وَلِكُلٍّ دَرَجٰتٌ مِّمَّا عَمِلُوْاۚ وَلِيُوَفِّيَهُمْ اَعْمَالَهُمْ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُوْنَ

وَيَوْمَ يُعْرَضُ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا عَلَى النَّارِۗ اَذْهَبْتُمْ طَيِّبٰتِكُمْ فِيْ حَيَاتِكُمُ الدُّنْيَا وَاسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهَاۚ فَالْيَوْمَ تُجْزَوْنَ عَذَابَ الْهُوْنِ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَكْبِرُوْنَ فِى الْاَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَفْسُقُوْنَ

'And We have enjoined upon man, to his parents, good treatment. His mother carried him with hardship and gave birth to him with hardship, and his gestation and weaning [period] is thirty months. [He grows] until, when he reaches maturity and reaches [the age of] forty years, he says, 'My Lord, enable me [literally, 'gather within me the utmost strength and ability'] to be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to work righteousness of which You will approve and make righteous for me my offspring. Indeed, I have repented to You, and indeed, I am of the Muslims.'

Those are the ones from whom We will accept the best of what they did and overlook their misdeeds, [their being] among the companions of Paradise. [That is] the promise of truth which they had been promised.

But one who says to his parents, 'Uff [an expression of distaste and irritation] to you; do you promise me that I will be brought forth [from the earth] when generations before me have already passed on [into oblivion]?' while they call to Allah for help [and to their son], 'Woe to you! Believe! Indeed, the promise of Allāh is truth.' But he says, 'This is not but legends of the former peoples' -

Those are the ones upon whom the word [i.e., decree] has come into effect, [who will be] among nations which had passed on before them of jinn and men. Indeed, they [all] were losers.

And for all there are degrees [of reward and punishment] for what they have done, and [it is] so that He may fully compensate them for their deeds, and they will not be wronged.

And the Day those who disbelieved are exposed to the Fire [it will be said], 'You exhausted your pleasures during your worldly life and enjoyed them, so this Day you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation because you were arrogant upon the earth without right and because you were defiantly disobedient.'' [QS. Al-Ahqaf (46):15-20]

Dutifulness to parents include: appropriate kindness to them, invoking Allah's blessings for them, paying attention to their advises (in this world) and, craving after their guidance to the right path even if they be non-Muslims.

Abusing and cursing one's parents is a great sin. 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, radhiyallahu 'anhu, related that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'It is of the greatest sins that a man curses his parents. It was asked, 'O' Allah's Messenger! How does a man curse his (own) parents?' He (ﷺ) said, 'The man abuses the father of another man, and then the latter abuses the father of the former, and abuses his mother, and then the latter abuses the former's mother.''

It is related that Abu Hurayrah (radiyallahu 'anhu) saw two men and asked one of them. Who is this to you?’ He replied, ‘My father.’ Abu Hurayrah said, ‘Do not call him by his name. Do not walk in front of him and do not sit before he does so.'

Muhammad Ibn Sirin said, ‘A person who walks in front of his father has disobeyed him, unless he does so to remove harmful things from the path. A person who calls his father by his name has disobeyed him. He must say, ‘O my father!'

Mujahid said, ‘A son should not push the hand of his father when he hits him. If a person stares at his parents he has not shown birr to them. If a person brings anything to them that grieves them he has disobeyed them.’

Ibn 'Uthman al-Hindl narrated that he heard Sa'd saying, ‘My ears have heard and my heart has recorded from Muhammad (ﷺ) the following words, ‘Whoever knowingly claims attribution to other than his father, paradise is forbidden for him.

Abu Hurayrah, radhiyallahu 'anhu narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Do not turn away from your fathers. Whoever who turns away from his father has committed disbelief.' [Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

Al-Hasan al-Basri said, ‘The worst offence is that a man brings his father before the ruler.’

Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu ’anhuma) narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Cursed is the one who abuses his father. Cursed is the one who abuses his mother.'

Abu Hurayrah (radiyallahu 'anhu) narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Allah does not accept the prayer of the one whose parents are angry with him, unless they are being oppressive towards him.'

The son is of his father's earnings. Jabir ibn 'Abdullah, radhiyallahu 'anhu, narrated that a man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'I have money and children, and my father wants to take my money by force. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'You and your money are for (or under service of) your father.'

A'ishah, radhiyallahu 'anha, narrated, 'The best of that from which man could eat and benefit is from his earnings, and his son is (considered) of his earnings.'

Yet in another hadith she, radhiyallahu 'anha, said [from the Prophet (ﷺ)], 'The man's son is of his earnings, the best of his earnings, so eat of their money or properties (i.e., get benefit from them).'"

"On the next session," said Wulandari, "we'll continue to discuss about our duty towards our parents, bi 'idhnillah."

Then she hummed,

I guess I learned it from my parents

That true love starts with friendship

A kiss on the forehead, a date night

Fake an apology after a fight *)

[Session 2]

Bahasa

The Golden Eggs (2)

"The captain of a cavalry fort was having breakfast when his lieutenant ran in the door.

'Captain,' he said with a salute, 'we’ve just received an urgent letter from our desert outpost. It states their dire need of water.'

'The water supply should arrive there in a few days. They can wait,' said the captain.

'Sir, I don’t believe so,' the lieutenant replied. 'The stamp was attached to the envelope with a paper clip,'" Wulansari started again.

"So, let's continue," said Wulansari. "As mentioned before, morality refers to beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bad—beliefs that can include judgments, values, rules, principles, and theories. These beliefs help guide our actions, define our values, and give us reasons for being the persons we are. Ethics, then, addresses the powerful question that Socrates formulated more than twenty-four hundred years ago: How ought we to live?

The continued relevance of this query, suggests something compelling about ethics: you cannot escape it. You cannot run away from all of the choices, feelings, and actions that accompany ideas about right and wrong, good and bad—ideas that persist in your culture and in your mind. After all, for much of your life, you have been assimilating, modifying, or rejecting the ethical norms you inherited from your family, community, and society. Unless you are very unusual, from time to time you deliberate about the rightness or wrongness of actions, embrace or reject particular moral principles or codes, judge the goodness of your character or intentions (or someone else’s), perhaps even question (and agonize over) the soundness of your own moral outlook when it conflicts with that of others. In other words, you are involved in ethics—you do ethics—throughout your life. Even if you try to remove yourself from the ethical realm by insisting that all ethical concepts are irrelevant or empty, you will have assumed a particular view—a theory in the broadest sense—about morality and its place in your life. If at some point you are intellectually brave enough to wonder whether your moral beliefs rest on coherent supporting considerations, you will see that you cannot even begin to sort out such considerations without—again—doing ethics. In any case, in your life you must deal with the rest of the world, which turns on moral conflict and resolution, moral decision and debate.

In public service, there is hierarchy that relates to the various levels of ethics, each having its own set of responsibilities and own possibilities for complexities. At the first step is personal morality, or an individual’s concept of right and wrong. This is formed as a basis of upbringing and environment. Second is professional ethics. These are typically codified within an organization or professional association relating to the organization or position. The third level is organizational. These can include written policies and procedures that dictate organizational expectations relating to ethical decision making and behavior. Lastly, there are social ethics. These are typically enacted as societal laws and also can be part of an individual’s personal social conscience.

History has shown that the vast majority of civilizations have been destroyed from internal forces, not from external ones. Corporations, agencies, and organizations are not immune from the same fate. Greed, power, competition, and materialism are just a few of the reasons behind internal destruction. The area of public service is not exempt from such tradition. The world that we live in very often can be morally disappointing. In many instances, this is often due to a lack of ethics with regards to the area of leadership.

Individuals become leaders as a result of a variety of possibilities and for a variety of reasons. Some are developed. Some possess qualities that lend themselves to being an effective leader. Some acquire leadership through force, wealth, social, or political connections. Yet, others become leaders as a result of circumstances or timing. However, regardless of the reason that an individual finds himself in a leadership role, he cannot be a leader without also having willing followers. Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the goal. Leaders must consider a multiplicity of issues and concerns in making consistently ethical decisions and in developing a code of ethical behavior for their organizations. It is the leader’s role to set a clear and uniform example of ethical behavior and to articulate specific expectations and goals so that ethical behavior becomes an integral theme of the organization.

Leadership is as complex a topic as that of ethics, so when one stops to combine the two, the result can be quite intimidating. Richard Brookhiser describes leadership as 'knowing yourself, knowing where you want to go, and then taking others to that new place.' There are countless leadership styles employed to accomplish this daunting task. One way is to focus analysis upon the ends/means/consequences equation that is suggested by Brookhiser. This leads to three primary questions: What is the goal? What means will we use to get there? What types of tradeoffs and compromises must be made along the way?

Ethics lie at the heart of all human relationships and, hence, at the heart of the relationship between leaders and followers. Throughout history, successful leaders have been those who have gained the trust of those who they have been responsible for leading. There can be much debate over how 'trust' is defined; however, regardless of this lack of agreement, most individuals are well aware when trust is in place and when it is not. Trust is a result of proper communication and clarity of purpose within an organization. Trust is confidence and reliance upon an individual, organization, or object. It includes possessing confidence in strength and integrity of the same. Through the establishment of trust within an organization and, if able to maintain the trust, leaders will be able to provide effective guidance and work on the proper development of the organization. As with personal relationships, a proper foundation of trust serves to support an organization through difficult times and enable leadership the time and ability to find and implement solutions that will assist the organization in overcoming challenges and obstacles when they are presented.

Warren Bennis and Joan Goldsmith mention qualities of leadership that are integral to engendering trust. The qualities mentioned by the authors are:

Vision. Successful leaders are those who inspire and create vision. Leadership vision serves to provide a foundation for organizational purpose and engender trust, which can enable followers to develop personal identity and feel vested in the vision and its creation. The leader involves us in the visions, empowers us to create it, and communicates the shared vision so that we integrate it into our lives.

Empathy. Leaders who possess unconditional empathy for those working within the organization will emerge as the most successful. Although their opinions may vary considerably from those who work for them, trust is established when employees believe that a leader understands their view and can relate to where they are coming from.

Consistency. A leader who maintains a level of consistency with regard to his stance on topics, his vision, his leadership style, and organizational placement will be trusted and emerge as successful. Although consistent, the successful leader also will be willing to consider new evidence and new events when making organizational decisions.

Integrity. A leader who maintains integrity that is above question will have the trust of his employees and co-workers. When a leader takes a stance on topics, based on his moral standard, and these actions are observable to those who work with and for the leader, he will gain their trust. This same leader must be ready, as well, to hold others accountable for their actions and decisions based on the standard of ethics laid out and adhered to by the leader.

As typically witnessed within sports, motivation originates with leadership. The leadership values and motivation of an organization must start at the top if it is to find its way to those farther down the line. If the ethical behavior of an organization is in question, or there is a need for change, then the establishment, or modification, of an organizational ethical code may be necessary.

A code of ethics (sometimes called an ethical code) is an assembly of institutional guidelines used to reduce ethical vagueness within an organization and serve as a means of reinforcing ethical conduct.

Organizational leadership establishes these codes based on moral values. A typical code of ethics contains general, nonspecific expectations and target guidelines that attempt to reduce vagueness and, thus, lessen the burden of ethical decision making with regards to gray areas. The codes are developed based not only on past organizational or individual experience, but also based on actions that the organization wishes to prevent from ever occurring.

According to Robin Bowen, codes of ethics have two primary purposes. First, they provide moral guidelines and professional standards of conduct. The professional codes hold people accountable for proper performance and devotion to honesty and obligation. The second purpose of codes is to define professional behavior to promote a sense of pride, tolerance, and responsibility among professionals.

The codes typically serve as the foundation for disciplinary action relating to ethical violations. Sometimes a code of ethics may incorporate personal expectations that are significantly beyond what is legally expected of employees. These may include such matters as morality, honesty, and truthfulness. A well-written code of ethics should properly dissuade people from committing unethical acts, and should incorporate procedures for discipline as well as the consequences for unethical actions.

Ethical behavior is the foundation of any professional organization. In law enforcement, many courses addressing ethics may be good, but they lack the knowledge of the ethical ideologies of the police officers that are being taught. Various divisions within a department may require different ethical framework because of the unit to which the officers are assigned. Patrol officers have different needs than narcotics officers, school resource officers, traffic officers, or special weapons and tactics officers. This makes the 'onestop shop' for ethics training not practical or efficient.

Often, when ethics is discussed as it relates to the criminal justice system, the emphasis is typically placed on law enforcement, the judicial system, corrections, and parole. However, law is the starting point for each of these and as such, legislators are the ones responsible for the formation of the law.

The primary obligation of the legislator is representation of the persons or community that collectively appointed the official. Legislative representation is a two-part task, where the individual is tasked with both representing and legislating. Each have relevant issues associated with ethics. Throughout each task, representation, and legislation, a legislator must communicate with his or her constituents so that legislators can represent the community’s best interests. Proper communication with constituents includes informing them and educating them as to the constitutional scope and limits of legislative rights and responsibilities. Proper communication also means informing them and educating them with regard to pending legislation, for instance, how a pending law will be worded and what impact, if any, it may have on the community. Lastly, it is incumbent upon the legislator to provide constituents and community members access to the legislator’s time so that they may express their concerns and access information they require to be properly informed.

What use is ethics—the study of morality? If you’re hoping for ethics to increase your paycheck, sell a product, or get a new job, you should probably look elsewhere. Still, this hardly means that ethics has no practical value. Ethics has to do with desperately important practical matters, including many our society struggles with: questions about genetic engineering, drone strikes, stockpiling and using weapons of mass destruction, fair taxation, campaign finance, and a host of social justice issues. It’s no accident that ethical theorists have often led the vanguard in achieving moral reforms. For instance, the nineteenth century utilitarians deliberately formulated their theory to correct abuses in the criminal justice system of their time.

Morality and ethics impact our personal lives—every time we get angry at another driver, are hurt by someone, make a commitment to a friend, or sign a document. They have this sort of living practicality because they expose the tension between what is and what ought to be, a tension we encounter daily. Studying ethics can aid us in dealing with this tension by helping us better understand what distinguishes right and wrong, how to think through moral problems, and how to address moral conflicts (among other things).

More profoundly, morality and ethics relate to the most important responsibility each of us has in life: the formation of our selves. Every choice we make contributes toward producing the moral personality that will define us in the next moment. As the twentieth-century existentialists emphasized, this power of choice—especially of moral choice—is an awesome responsibility.

Yet ethics is not just essential for handling major social problems. The study of morality is important because morality itself is important. Without any functional morality, society would not even be possible. Imagine that no one bothered about the moral duty of truthfulness. Business and government would collapse since no agreement could be depended upon. Education and the news would become useless since their accuracy could not be trusted. Science would whither to mere 'politics' and opinion. Even families and friendships would suffer since these require that we be truthful with each other.

Not only economists are faced with the problem of choice—the scarcity—but also, in terms of morality. What then, is the purpose of morality? What is morality for? It seems to have many purposes. These include enabling us to reach our goals in socially acceptable ways, enabling us to resolve conflicts of interests fairly, developing certain kinds of positive character, promoting human happiness, enabling society to survive. All of this is a matter of choice, which of course is led by 'critical thinking' to find the best solution.

You can probably think of others, to treat them as ends in themselves, not as a means to an end. We have an obligation to treat others rightly; not to take advantage of a situation."

"And lastly," Wulansari was about to go, "just think again of our story about the countryman and his goose. Imagine if the goose represented a loved one, when ethics reminded him, he could only be stunned, feared and regretted his actions, while humming,

So I walk into the dead of night where my monsters like to hide

Chaos feels so good inside, no more

I lost, I lost, I lost control again

Always do the same and I'm to blame

I lost control again

I don't, I don't, I don't know who I am

Always do the same and I'm to blame

I lost control again *)

Then Wulansari concluded with, "And Allah knows best."

Citations & References:

- Aric W. Dutelle & Randy S. Taylor, Ethics for the Public Service Professional, 2018, CRC Press

- Lewis Vaughn, Beginning Ethics : An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2015, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc

- Louis P. Pojman, The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, 2000, Oxford University Press

- Richard Burnor & Yvonne Raley, Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases, 2018, Oxford University Press

*) "Lost Control" written by Alan Walker / Anders Froen / Fredrik Borch Olsen / Magnus Martinsen / Sorana Paula Pacurar / Thomas Troelsen

[Session 1]

Bahasa

The Golden Eggs (1)

"It was said, a countryman possessed a goose that laid golden eggs. Each day he visited the nest, took the egg to the marketplace, and soon began to get rich. Before long he grew impatient with the goose because she gave him only a single egg a day. He was not getting rich fast enough. He became greedy and wanted the profit at once, so he kills the goose expecting to discover gold inside it. But when he cuts it open, there were no golden eggs. In the end, he loses the animal he killed and its daily gift," said Wulansari—Sundanese, meaning a beautiful moon—when she arrived and radiated her beauty, after saying Basmalah and greeting with Salaam.

"No passion can be a greater torment to those who are led by insatiable covetousness. It makes men blind to their present happiness. Men who give themselves up to this propensity, know not how to be contented with the constant and continued sufficiency. Their minds are haunted with the prospect of becoming rich," Wulansari went on. "The core elements of human morality (the principles of good and bad behavior; right and wrong) are universal. Ethics remains relevant to everyday life today because the fundamental issues involved in human interactions in society are the same no matter where or when people interact.

History credits Theodore Roosevelt with saying that 'to educate a man in mind, but not in morals is to create a menace to society.' Everyone encounters ethical dilemmas in his or her personal and professional lives; the question is whether they are ready for them when they do.

The term ethics means the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct. The Greek root for ethics is ethos, which emphasizes the perfection of the individual and the community in which he or she is defined. Nearly all educated people acknowledge the importance of ethics. So, what then is ethics about? Aric W. Dutelle and Randy S. Taylor mention that ethics is about:

Right and Wrong: 'We do not call anything wrong, unless we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of his fellow creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience.'

Virtue and Vice: 'Vice, the opposite of virtue, shows us more clearly what virtue is. Justice becomes more obvious when we have injustice to compare it to.'

Benefit and Harm: 'The two essential ingredients in the sentiment of justice are the desire to punish a person who has done harm, and the knowledge or belief that there is some definite individual or individuals to whom harm has been done.'

Universal Rules of Conduct: 'Ethics encompasses fixed, universal rules of right conduct that are contingent on neither time nor culture nor circumstance.'

Character: Ethics is entwined within ones character, 'the traits, qualities, and established reputation that define who one is and what one stands for in the eyes of others.'

Providing an Example: Ethics is founded upon 'an established pattern of conduct worthy of emulation.' 

Morals, Values, and Ethics are three different words. The word morality originates from the Latin word moralis, which means 'traditional customs or proper behavior.' Therefore, fundamentally, morals refer to a set of rules defining what is considered to be right or wrong. These rules are defined by (although not typically written down or 'defined' by writing) and accepted by a group or society. The group or society can include peers, educators, religion, media, and the family unit. If someone within the group or society breaks one of the rules, then they are typically considered to have been 'bad' or 'immoral.' Morality describes what is. Ethics describes what ought to be. 

Values, on the other hand, provide direction in the determination of right versus wrong or good versus bad. Values are what an individual believes to have worth and importance, or to be valuable. As such, morals are values that an individual attributes to a system of beliefs that assist the individual in defining right from wrong or good from bad. 

Ethics, which has as its core the Greek word ethos, refers to the 'moral character of an individual.' The Greeks believed that ethos included an emphasis on an individual’s character as well as including the citizen as a component of a greater community. At the core, this seems an easy beginning; that ethics begins with the individual. 

Ethics involves attempting to address questions as to how a moral outcome can be achieved. This is sometimes referred to as 'applied ethics.'  Dutelle and Taylor divide the study of ethics into three areas: 

Normative ethics: How moral values should be determined. (What do individuals think is right?)

Descriptive ethics: What morals are actually followed or adhered to. (How should individuals act?)

Meta-ethics: The fundamental nature of ethics, including whether it has an objective justification, how individuals determine for themselves what societal norms to follow. (What does it mean to be 'right'?)

Morals and ethics should be distinguished from law as well. Simply because something is legally permissible does not mean that it is morally and ethically permissible. This is the fundamental argument around the debates surrounding abortion, medical marijuana, child labor, capital punishment, and many others. And, just as legality does not suggest morality, illegality does not imply immorality.

There are decisions, choices, and considerations that may be moral, ethical, or legal, or that may be combinations of them. An action or decision can be ethically right, morally wrong, and legally neutral. An example of this would be the following: Mike likes to eat red meat. The location where Mike lives frowns on its citizens eating red meat. It is not illegal, just socially unacceptable. Since there is a moral tenet in place, which essentially forbids eating red meat, doing so is thus viewed as immoral ('wrong'). However, since the behavior of Mike does not affect any other person directly, it is viewed as ethically neutral by others, but as 'right' by Mike. Since there is no law that exists making the eating of red meat illegal, doing so is legally neutral.

But what about homicide? There are various categories of homicide: excusable homicide, justifiable homicide, murder, etc. Not all choices that one makes are ethical ones. For instance, the choice of '2' or '3' in deciding the correct answer to the problem of 'what is 1 + 1?' is not at all an ethical one. Nor is deciding the answer to: 'How far away is the Earth from the sun?' A great many decisions are made as a result of testing, through a logical, methodological system, such as mathematics and science. Other times, math and science are of no use in the decision-making process and one must delve deeper in order to come up with the 'right' solution to the problem at hand.

When the choice to be made is between what is clearly right and clearly wrong, a decision as to what to do is essentially one of moral courage, rather than an ethical dilemma. An ethical man knows he should not steal, whereas a moral man would not steal.

However, there are additional factors that may serve as an impetus for ethical decision making. These factors may include, but are not limited to, family, friends, profession, religion, community, culture, and law. It is these factors, combined with one’s personal bias, that impact an individual’s concept of right and wrong, and, thus, impact the ethical decision-making process.

A determination of what to do in a given situation is more difficult when the choices are closer to shades of gray as to right and wrong or between competing rights (virtues). Such a quandary would be what is referred to as an ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma is a situation in which one is faced with choosing between competing virtues that are considered equally important, but which cannot be simultaneously honored.

So, if one is truly confronted with an ethical dilemma, rather than a decision between what is ethical and what is moral, then perhaps an ethical dilemma is best described as a decision between two competing rights, or a 'right versus right' conflict. Therefore, It is important for one to understand the decision-making process if one is to evaluate whether or not a decision is an ethical or unethical one. 

There is more to ethics than simply knowing what it is about. It is just as important to know what is involved in its makeup. Ethics is the way values are practiced. As such, it is both a process of inquiry (deciding how to decide) and a code of conduct (a set of standards governing behavior).

To think well is to think critically. Critical thinking, the conscious use of reason, stands clearly apart from other ways of grasping truth or confronting choice: impulse, habit, etc. Impulse is nothing more than an unreflective spontaneity, a mind on autopilot. Habit on the other hand is programmed repetition. This is akin to muscle memory, except as applies to behavior. Repetition is habitual. Therefore, 'the object of critical thinking is to achieve a measure of objectivity to counteract or diminish the subjective bias that experience and socialization bestow on us all.'

Ethical foundation begins with the individual. While simplistic in nature, it is this issue that also is the starting point for the complications and travesties relating to ethics in public service, the fact that it all begins with an individual. An agency or organization cannot have ethics; it is its employees who have ethics. It is the administration that makes ethical decisions. The upside is that the majority of people desire to be ethical, most organizations desire to act ethically, and the majority of employees and organizations desire to be treated ethically. The downside to this is that a great many individuals and organizations simply are not proficient at the application of shared values, or group ethics, to the process of decision making. The glory of the human story is that the capacity for good news makes ethics possible; the tragedy is that the propensity for evil makes ethics necessary.

In the next session, we'll discuss, in brief, ethics in public service. Bi 'idhnillah."

[Session 2]

Bahasa

Are Judges Political Actors?

"In a formal ceremony of a Judicial Institution's new building, a senior Judge stood up, pointed at the statue of Lady Justice, and said, 'Never judge the Lady by her cover!'

Instantly, all the audience answered, "Yes, your honor!"

But a while after the audience was quiet, a boy shouted, 'Yeah, the Lady's eyes are closed, but her ears aren't!" said the Moon while carrying scales and sword, but not blindfolded, imitating the Greek goddess, Themis, after opening with Basmalah and Salaam.

"A judge’s role is to make decisions," the Moon went on. "People rightly expect judges to be excellent decision-makers. They expect judges to be objective, rational, accurate, impartial, deliberative and decisive. These are lofty ideals–necessarily so. Many judges walk past a statue of Lady Justice on their way to their courtroom, a personification of these ideals and a reminder of judicial systems’ moral force. The ability of judges to adhere to these ideals, to be good decision-makers, and to deliver fair judgments, is the measure of the public’s trust in their judiciary.

What motivates judges in their day-to-day role? Moreover, how does this affect their decision-making? It is not unreasonable to assume that judges are self-interested to some degree, yet the self-interested judge is largely an 'absent figure' in the literature on the judicial role, says Brian M. Barry. To maybe overgeneralise somewhat, judges may have career ambitions, they may feel a sense of achievement when they are promoted or praised, and they may enjoy the status that comes with their role. They may worry about their reputations and like to be liked and well respected. They may smart when their work is criticised in the media or by their colleagues on a higher court. They presumably prefer to be well paid, enjoy their leisure time to varying degrees and think about retirement. Aside from research on judges’ demographic characteristics, psychological effects and judicial politics, judicial scholars have considered how judges’ personal and professional motivations can affect their decision-making.

Judicial scholar Lawrence Baum remarks that amid ever-more prolific and sophisticated efforts to understand many aspects of the judicial function, particularly the role of politics in judicial decision-making, it is worth pausing to reflect that judges are but 'human decision makers.' Although an obvious point, it is nevertheless an important one, hinting at the importance of not disregarding the more mundane, everyday and intrinsic motivations that may affect judges and that may get lost in the clamour to better understand their role.

Brian M. Barry tells us about research that uncovers answers to a series of questions concerning judges. Is there empirical evidence that judges’ decision-making is systematically affected by how much (or how little) they value their time off the bench? Researchers have investigated this by assessing the productivity of judges and the quality of their decisions. Work-life balance, the pursuit of leisure and a judge’s workload are interconnected.

When judges’ workloads are manageable and appropriate, some judges may decide not to put more time and effort into deciding a case than other judges do because they value their leisure time more. The consequence may be that different judges may give different decisions, depending on how much effort they put in. Equally, a judge’s workload may be so overwhelming and unworkable as to affect their capacity to make the best possible judicial decisions.

How does variation in workload affect judges’ output and decision-making? When faced with high pressure on their caseload, judges preferred to reduce the number of judgments they wrote rather than compromise on their quality, as measured by the number of citations that decisions subsequently accrued.

Some researchers have presented tentative evidence that judges try to protect themselves from overwhelming caseloads by deciding certain types of cases in strategic ways.

Judges’ decisions are not the product of their innate personal characteristics such as their gender, their race or their age. The colour of a judge’s skin or their gender does not, of itself, affect how they think about and decide cases. Moreover, judges will seldom acknowledge that their views on specific legal issues–and by extension, their decisionmaking–are in any way connected to personal characteristics they happen to possess.

Societies rightly expect judges to make unbiased decisions, blind to the personal characteristics of litigants who appear before them. Justice systems portray their impartiality through statues of Lady Justice wearing a blindfold, or tenets carved into court buildings that proclaim, among other things, 'equal justice under law.' Judges’ professional codes of ethics, and rules of natural justice and due process, are replete with expressions of how judges must treat all litigants impartially and decide cases free from prejudice and bias. Despite these ideals, empirical studies regularly demonstrate differences and inconsistencies in judicial decision-making, apparently owing to particular characteristics of litigants, including gender, race or ethnicity or age.

Judges, of course, are human, says Brian Barry. They are social actors and political actors. They are pushed and pulled by internal and external forces. Psychological forces. Emotional forces. Institutional forces. Political forces. Self-interested forces as professionals. Implicit biases. Explicit prejudices.

Often, judges admirably resist, or at least strive to resist, some of the insidious consequences of these forces. Mindful of the lofty standards expected of them, judges aspire to perform the task of judging solely within the four corners of applicable law. Sometimes, judges may think it right and necessary that to ‘do justice’—a slippery and amorphous notion—they must acknowledge and bend to sensitive human, social or political concerns that guide them towards what they perceive to be a better, fairer judicial outcome. And then there are other occasions when judges may consciously or subconsciously succumb to the negative consequences of some of the internal and external forces mentioned.

Judges know that their decisions can be scrutinised, not just by the parties involved in the case, but by other audiences outside the courtroom. Judges may, therefore, bear in mind other institutions beyond the door of their court when they deliver their judgments.

Appellate courts, fellow judges in the broader judicial community, other branches of government, individual political actors, the public and the media may all, at one time or another, weigh on a judge’s mind. These other audiences can be categorised as external institutions that exert, to varying degrees, influence over judges when deciding particular cases. Judges, therefore, will perceive themselves as actors in a wider system of external, interrelated institutions. 

Then, what about artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, can it assist them in their decision-making in many jurisdictions? In a handful of courts, AI judges have supplanted human judges altogether. Online dispute resolution platforms and online courts have developed at an extraordinary pace, particularly throughout 2020, and are likely to become increasingly immersive experiences as technology develops, perhaps mimicking real-life courtrooms.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a notoriously amorphous concept. In its simplest terms, AI refers to computers doing the sorts of things that minds can do. AI machines are aimed at approximating some aspect of human cognition—to behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were to behave in the same way. Many AI researchers argue that the goal is to develop intelligence that improves upon and betters the capacity of the human brain.

Technologists speak of different waves of AI: first-wave and second-wave AI systems. First-wave AI refers to rule-based systems that are preprogrammed by humans with complex decision trees or flow charts to undertake specific tasks. First-wave AI systems are dictated by human input towards a finite number of appropriate outcomes. Secondwave AI refers to systems that learn from vast swathes of data, and develop and improve upon their decision-making capabilities accordingly. While first-wave AI systems rely entirely on a finite set of rules that humans programme them with, second-wave AI systems have the capacity to use and analyse data in their own right. That said, they do not reason or process information in the same way humans do. Instead, they rely on machine learning.

The question of whether computers could or should replace human judges has been asked for many decades. However, it is only in the last ten years or so that this prospect has become a genuine possibility, and sometimes a reality. It is not just judges that increasingly rely on AI systems. Lawyers too employ AI systems that analyse data on past cases to analyse and predict likely outcomes in upcoming cases. This technology has developed hugely in recent years. Its rise has been prolific, with leading litigation lawyers suggesting that it may even be considered malpractice not to use this technology in the not-too-distant future.

To return to the judicial function, AI systems are increasingly common in courtrooms, and its reach is truly global. Thus far, most systems are designed to assist, rather than replace human judges, serving different functions in different contexts. For instance, some AI systems collate and present information about parties and some calculate and suggest sentences for convicted criminals based on the information about a case. Other systems act in a supervisory role, flagging to human judges when their proposed judgments are unusual or out of line with trends from past case data.

To take some examples, in February 2020 a Malaysian court used an AI system for the first time which recommended sentencing decisions in two drug possession cases by analysing trends in judgments from similar cases decided between 2014 and 2019.

Judges retained discretion to use the AI system’s recommendation or not. The Malaysian judiciary now uses the system to recommend sentencing decisions for drug possession and rape cases, and it is envisaged that it will soon be rolled out for awarding damages in road traffic accident personal injuries cases.

In 2017, Ohio judges started to employ a bespoke AI system to collate information for resolving juvenile court cases. The system provides a summary of a child’s situation, information about their educational situation, their living arrangements and their medical and drug use histories. It is envisaged that over time, as this AI system learns about more cases and case outcomes, it will be able to suggest decisions in later cases.

AI systems designed to assist judges have been integrated into many Chinese courts in the last few years. For example, in a bid to improve the consistency of decision-making, judges are now assisted by AI systems that give judges an 'abnormal judgment warning' if their decisions go against the grain of other similar decisions in the database.

In Mexico, the ‘Expertius’ system advises judges and clerks on whether a plaintiff is eligible or not for a pension.

Now back to the question, are the judges political actors? According to Keith Bybee, a research in America shows that the large majorities of the American public seem to believe that all judges are political actors—except when they are not. This ambivalent point of view fosters the suspicion that judges often do not mean what they say; and this suspicion, in turn, threatens to erode public confidence in court authority and eat away at the judiciary's standing as an impartial arbitrator of individual disputes.

Judges, of course, are human, says Brian Barry. They are social actors and political actors. They are pushed and pulled by internal and external forces. Psychological forces. Emotional forces. Institutional forces. Political forces. Self-interested forces as professionals. Implicit biases. Explicit prejudices.

Often, judges admirably resist, or at least strive to resist, some of the insidious consequences of these forces. Mindful of the lofty standards expected of them, judges aspire to perform the task of judging solely within the four corners of applicable law  [the four corners rule contract law, also known as the patrol evidence rule, stipulates that if two parties enter into a written agreement, they cannot use oral or implied agreements in court to contradict the terms of the written agreement. The term 'four corners' refers to the four corners of a document]. Sometimes, judges may think it right and necessary that to ‘do justice’—a slippery and amorphous notion—they must acknowledge and bend to sensitive human, social or political concerns that guide them towards what they perceive to be a better, fairer judicial outcome. And then there are other occasions when judges may consciously or subconsciously succumb to the negative consequences of some of the internal and external forces mentioned. And Allah knows best."

Though she was not blind, but why Lady Justice covered her eyes? However the Moon had to go, and she left while answering it by chanting,

I can turn it on, be a good machine

I can hold the weight of worlds, if that's what you need

Be your everything

I can do it, I can do it, I'll get through it

But I'm only human and I bleed when I fall down

I'm only human *)

Citations & References:
- Brian M. Barry, How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights Into Judicial Decision Making, 2021, Informa Law
- Keith Bybee, All Judges Are Political—Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law, 2010, Stanford University Press
- Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think, 2008, Harvard University Press
- Cass R. Sunstein, [et al.], Are judges political? : An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary, 2006, The Brookings Institution
*) "Human" written by Martin Johnson & Christina Perri

Bahasa

The Pictures in Our Heads (2)

"Two dogs were standing guard on a pig farm, talking about the pigs.

'You know,' said one, 'humans say that the pigs can't do looking up.'

'So, what do humans suggest pigs can do?,' asked the other.

The first answered, 'They suggest that the pigs have to somersault, as if sleeping on their backs'," the Moon continued.

"Politics and culture are endlessly talk about Public Opinion," the Moon carried on. "The president, members of Congress, candidates for public office, interest group leaders, journalists, and corporate executives, as well as ordinary citizens, routinely ask, 'What does the public think?' Political leaders need to know what sorts of policies and initiatives voters support, but other groups and individuals also need a working knowledge of public opinion. Interest group leaders must decide which battles to wage and how best to mobilize potential supporters. Journalists, who are key players in measuring and communicating public opinion, strive both to inform those of us who are curious about our fellow citizens’ attitudes and to understand what their audience wants. Corporate executives must pay attention to trends in a country's culture—what consumers think about, what they purchase, and generally, how they choose to live.

Perhaps the most obvious indicator of public opinion is the sample survey or opinion poll. Quantitative data from surveys can often give us a sense of how citizens feel about policy issues, social practices, or lifestyle issues. The results of elections and referenda sometimes reveal citizens’ preferences in very dramatic ways; it is often said that an election is the only poll that matters. Yet one must go beyond these obvious techniques and consider all of the 'places' that people’s opinions can be found: in the scripts of television programs; at political rallies, town meetings, or city council hearings; in the rhetoric of journalism; in the dialogue among friends who frequent a coffeehouse or neighborhood bar; in the political discussions one sees on the Internet and on social media or hears on talk radio. To focus on survey results alone is to miss most of the story.

The phrase 'public opinion' was not used widely before the nineteenth century, but many political philosophers of the ancient period used similar phrases to speak about popular sentiment. Plato, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century BCE, acknowledged public opinion as a central force in political affairs, but he doubted that people could realize their own best interests or work on their own to create a morally sound state. Plato thought that the just state should be governed by philosopher kings, and that members of the public should be educated to appreciate how these leaders act on behalf of the common good in order to understand and appreciate their government and the laws they lived under.

Aristotle argued most eloquently for the voice of the public, defending the wisdom of the common citizen. Aristotle did not see public opinion as the sentiments people held toward particular issues of the day, although he saw those attitudes as important and worth articulating. Instead, he emphasized the prevailing values, norms, and tastes of the citizenry.

Cicero, the renowned statesman and orator, claimed, 'Sic est vulgus: ex veritate pauce, ex opinione multa aestimat,' which can be translated as 'This is the common crowd: judging few matters according to truth, many according to opinion.' The Romans did not dismiss public opinion completely, but they believed that it mattered most in regard to leadership. Were statesmen honored by the people? Were they popular? Much discussion of public opinion in Roman times was oriented around this narrow dimension of politics.

Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian statesman and writer, who began to write at the start of the sixteenth century, best known for his book on political strategy, The Prince, written as an advisory tract for potential rulers. In it, he discusses such questions as how a prince should act ('bear himself') in public, whether he needs to build fortresses, and whether it is better to be feared or loved by the people. Machiavelli writes about the nature of the people, 'For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you. … Men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.'

From Machiavelli we see how closely early theorizing about public opinion and governance was tied to observations about human nature. Before the twentieth century, it was conventional for philosophers to speculate about the essence of human nature so that they could provide a holistic picture of man as political animal.

The eighteenth century was a time of immense political and social change. It was the century of the French and American Revolutions, and both were grounded in political philosophy. The most important discussions of democracy and public opinion occurred in Europe. Some leading early American statesmen, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, often participated in these debates during the considerable time they spent in France and Great Britain.

Perhaps the most important work on public opinion was produced by Jean- Jacques Rousseau, a brilliant and unruly Enlightenment thinker who challenged a variety of social norms and existing theoretical paradigms. More than any thinker to date, Rousseau thought it necessary to place considerable power in the hands of the public.

We cannot leave the era of the French Revolution without mentioning Jacques Necker, finance minister to Louis XVI, widely believed to have popularized the phrase “public opinion.” Necker recognized that political discourse and the nature of politics had changed dramatically in the eighteenth century.

In the nineteenth century various political philosophers tackled the problem of public opinion. Among them were the English scholars known as the Utilitarians. Jeremy Bentham was the first of the Utilitarians to write extensively about public opinion, and he was most interested in how public opinion acts as a sanction or constraint. Bentham believed that public opinion keeps society in equilibrium by preventing people from engaging in non-normative behavior.

Similar views of public opinion as a force of social control were held by Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of nineteenth-century American politics. Tocqueville made his famous argument about political equality and its relationship to mass opinion. He noted that in societies with extreme inequality—in an aristocracy, for example—public opinion is not viewed as particularly important.

At the same time that Tocqueville was writing about American politics, Karl Marx was studying political and social life from an entirely different standpoint. Marx did not often use the phrase 'public opinion,' in part because it was not commonly used in German philosophical hought until later in the nineteenth century. Yet he and Friedrich Engels, his collaborator and patron, did argue strongly that organic, grassroots public opinion is rare.

Although 'public opinio' is an essential concept in democratic theory, it eludes a simple and agreed upon definition. Researchers and theorists from many disciplines, applying disparate assumptions and methodologies, often use distinct definitions. This diversity reflects the inherent complexity and ambiguity of the subject. Also, the meaning of public opinion is tied to changing historical circumstances: the sort of political culture that exists, the nature of communication technology, and the importance of public participation in the everyday workings of government.

It is difficult to say which definition of public opinion is “best.” In contemporary American life, all the definitions are used, depending on the circumstances in which the public mood is being discussed. Scholars certainly use all five categories in their work, as do journalists and public officials. Some might argue that because of the popularity of polling, the first category (public opinion as an aggregation of individual opinions) is most common, but journalists and our leaders often gain knowledge of public opinion by speaking with interest group leaders. And almost all reporters and policymakers have, either knowingly or unknowingly, manufactured notions of public opinion through their spoken and written rhetoric.

So, why Public Opinion is so important? Public opinion research is a very broad field, because scholars in many disciplines need to understand how attitudes about public affairs are formed, communicated, and measured. There are four broad reasons why so many scholars and public officials study and care about public opinion.

First, the legitimacy and stability of governments depends on public support. If citizens withdraw their consent, the government has no legitimate powers.

Second, Public Opinion should constrain political leaders. People’s opinions about policy issues, like their opinions about government and democratic values, engage both normative and empirical questions.

Third, Public Opinion provides clues about culture.

Fourth, political leaders seek to change or mobilize public opinion. While political leaders may be constrained by public opinion, they also try to influence it. The most obvious circumstance is wartime, when presidents typically urge citizens to make large sacrifices: to send their sons and daughters off to war, to conserve scarce resources, and to contribute in other ways.

In direct democracy, all qualified citizens can participate directly in policymaking. We think of direct democracy as a practice within a political system, not an entire system; it is difficult to imagine any government making all decisions by direct democracy. In a strong form of direct democracy, qualified citizens can participate in meetings at which all major policies are decided. Of course, people can disagree about what counts as a 'major' policy or decision. In more limited forms of direct democracy, qualified citizens vote occasionally on certain issues, not all major issues. These various democratic procedures differ widely both in how much power they give to the public and in the demands they place on citizens.

Even minimalist (or 'elite') normative theories of democracy entail some degree of democratic competence. What constitutes democratic competence? According to Walter Lippmann in 1922, although US political thinkers have disagreed about who is qualified to deal with political affairs, they generally have agreed on the basic qualifications, which they have construed as innate, 'What counted was a good heart, a reasoning mind, a balanced judgment. These would ripen with age, but it was not necessary to consider how to inform the heart and feed the reason. Men took in their facts as they took in their breath.'

Let us begin with 'a good heart.' Most conceptions of democratic government (and even of non-democratic government) assume the existence of a common good, or 'the general welfare.' Now, belief in 'general welfare' need not be a matter of 'heart' at all; in principle, people may cooperate to promote a shared interest even if they are utterly indifferent—or even hostile—to each other’s welfare. Nevertheless, most conceptions of a well-ordered society assume that citizens generally respect and sympathize with each other’s basic interests. For example, we typically are heartened, but not surprised, by reports of donations pouring in to help survivors of a natural disaster. People who seem to value no interests other than their own may be called “antisocial,” or on a more extreme level, 'sociopathic': hostile to society and everyone within it.

But the issue of 'good-heartedness' is not a simple morality tale of human generosity and solidarity versus blinkered selfishness. One complication is that people tend to assess whether others are 'antisocial' by whether they conform to social norms, some of which are widely shared, others of which are divergent or controversial. Moreover, people tend to identify with social groups, large and small. You might identify as Cubs fan, a woman, a dog lover, a feminist, a Republican, a Baptist, a vegetarian, or any of dozens of other social identities. Sometimes our identifications and how we think about them—and how we think about people in other social groups—can influence our attitudes and behaviors in ways that we may not even notice. People may think of each other as comrades, adversaries, or anything in between based on our perceptions of each other’s group identities. As with social norms in general, there is no agreement on how to deal with our divergent group identities—and even if we agreed in the abstract, we would still be influenced by our often unconscious assumptions.

Now we turn to 'a reasoning mind.' Probably most policy questions will not simply yield to benevolence, tolerance, and a willingness to transcend group loyalties, important as those may be. Policymakers should weigh relevant facts and consider the likely and possible consequences of their actions, resisting wishful thinking. Plato, in book 6 of The Republic, argued that government should only be entrusted to the sort of person 'who has the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn—noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance.' Plato’s ideal ruler (a 'philosopher king') thus combines expert knowledge and intelligence with a range of noble virtues. Most citizens, however gracious and courageous they may be, may lack the time and motivation to learn and reason about policy issues.

Indeed, many people may not be well suited to reason about policy issues, regardless of time constraints. Most of us know people whose eyes seem to glaze over when a conversation turns to politics or policy, as well as others who are 'often wrong but never in doubt.'

What is 'balanced judgment,' and how is it distinct from a 'reasoning mind'? We cannot be sure what Lippmann meant, but we can consider at least two meanings. Some people think of 'judgment' as a sort of practical wisdom—a sense for how to listen to people who disagree with each other, when to postpone a decision and when to move ahead, how to avoid big mistakes, and how to identify the mistakes one has made—that reason alone cannot confer. Alternatively, but not incompatibly, one can think of judgment as a decisionmaking process that integrates Lippmann’s other elements: a good heart and a reasoning mind. If our emotions (our 'heart') and our reason seem to tug in opposite directions, reconciling the dispute may be a matter of judgment. Or if our emotions seem to sweep our reason along in their path—if our reason is providing rationalizations for conclusions we immediately jumped to—'balanced judgment' may be the mental attribute or process that tells us not to decide until we have really considered all sides as fairly as we can.

The meaning of 'public opinion' is always shifting. How we think about the concept depends on historical circumstance as well as on our research hypotheses and, more than ever today, the technologies we have on hand to assess public opinion and the influences on it. Public opinion is a psychological, sociological, economic, and political phenomenon all at the same time. Public opinion formation takes place constantly as people react to the world around them. We are all bombarded with persuasive communications daily, from the mass media, online, through social media, from local political leaders, and from our friends and our families. This flood of incoming information—often symbolic in nature—shapes how people think about particular political events, actors, and policy.

When we think about the future, we must always think about the past. As we think about the often troubled but crucial relationship between the public and its leaders, perhaps it is best not to end on a cynical note, but on a hopeful and historical one. Abraham Lincoln, one of the most impressive democratic leaders of all time, was also—not surprisingly—very attentive to public opinion, and thoughtful about it. In many ways, Lincoln anticipated the problems of mass democracy and how difficult it would be for American presidents to hear all the citizens all the time. But Lincoln did his best, creating forums for public expression and listening as hard as he could, given the pressures of his office.

Do our own leaders do as well as Lincoln in taking public opinion seriously? Might new media, social media, and advances in communication technology be used to this effect? How will people go about forming and expressing their opinions on major political and social issues? The future of public opinion remains to be written. And Allah knows best."

Unlike Cinderella—who left one of her shoon for the Prince to find, the Moon left no shoon except for the traces that was swamped in the mind of those who looked at her. And time had run out, the Moon left while chanting, 

After my picture fades and darkness has turned to gray

Watching through windows

You're wondering if I'm okay

Secrets stolen from deep inside

And the drum beats out of time *)

Citations & References:
- Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, 1922, Free Press
- Carroll J. Glynn, Susan Herbst, Mark Lindeman, Garrett J. O’Keefe, Public Opinion, 2016, Westview Press
- Maxwell McCombs, Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion, 2014, Polity Press
*) "Time After Time" written by Cyndi Lauper & Robert Hyman

[Session 1]

Bahasa