Citations & References:"In a never-never land, in a company that prospered in its day, the boss called one of his employees into the office. 'Radja,' he said, 'you’ve been with the company for six months. You started off in the mailroom. Just one week later, you were promoted to a sales position, and one month after that you were promoted to district sales manager. Just four months later, you were promoted to vice president. Now it’s time for me to retire, and I want you to take over the company. What do you say to that?''Thanks,' said the employee.'Thanks?' the boss replied. 'That’s all you can say?''Oh, sorry,' the employee said. 'Thanks ... Dad!'""Let's move on," said Wulandari. "Imagine that you were able to live your life in such a way that you could do whatever you wanted to do, whenever you wanted to do it, and you would never get caught or face any consequences for your actions? That is, you could cheat on exams in school, plagiarize papers, sleep with whoever you wanted to, or embezzle money from your employer, and never worry about getting caught. In Plato’s classic work The Republic, says Scott B. Rae, the myth of Gyges sets out precisely this situation. In a parallel to Frodo putting on the ring in the film trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, Gyges was given the opportunity to live as an invisible entity, able to do anything he wanted without anyone discovering what he had done. That is, he could do whatever he wanted and would assuredly get away with it. Given the chance to live life like this, the question Plato raises is 'Would a person want to be moral? And if so, why?'After a good deal of dialogue, Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart from any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid.Rae goes on with an inquiry, 'How would you respond to the question 'Why be moral?'' Morality matters because most people, when they are genuinely honest with themselves, associate doing well in life with being a good person. Having moral character is still essential to most people’s conceptions of what makes a person flourish in his or her life. For example, says Rae, it is difficult to imagine a person being considered a success in life if he has gained his wealth dishonestly. It is equally difficult to call a person a success who is at the top of his profession but cheats on his wife, abuses his children, and drinks too much. On the other hand, we rightly hold up a person as a model of living a good life, even though he or she lacked most material goods that society values. One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment.The same holds true for society as a whole. Most people would not want to live in a society in which morality was unimportant, in which conceptions of right and wrong carried little weight. In fact, it is unlikely that any sort of civilized society could continue unless it had concern for key moral values, such as fairness, justice, truthfulness, and compassion. Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies who have some sense that they cannot flourish without being moral. This is sometimes referred to as social contract theory, which maintains that as a society, people generally agree to abide by certain moral rules and standards for the sake of social order and peace.Morality matters because moral questions are at the core of life’s most vital issues. Morality is primarily concerned with questions of right and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification of the distinction. Closely related are such questions as: What is a good person? What things are morally praiseworthy? What constitutes a good life? And what would a good society look like? These are fundamental to your view of the world. You cannot formulate an adequate worldview without providing answers to these moral questions. Your view of morality is connected to other critical questions that your worldview must answer. Everyone has a worldview, that is, a set of intellectual lenses through which a person sees the world. Of course, not everyone’s worldview is well thought out or entirely consistent; nonetheless, everyone has one.Morality matters because, in our increasingly diverse global culture, it is critical for solving what may be the most important issue for our survival—namely, getting along with each other peacefully despite a plethora of irreconcilable differences. Morality matters because important virtues and moral principles are at stake in these public issues and because ethics is our best hope for establishing a framework for living together peacefully despite our ideological differences.Morality matters because practitioners in a wide variety of professions deal with moral questions, whether or not they realize it. For example, morality is fundamental to politics, since politics and law concern the way people ought to order their lives together in society. In addition, medicine and the sciences, such as genetics and molecular biology, have numerous moral overtones because they deal with the morally charged areas of life and death. Further, business practices provide a variety of ethical minefields that can challenge the integrity of the men and women striving to succeed in an ever more competitive global economy.Morality matters because you face moral choices every day, both in the workplace and in your private life. Every so often you will face emotionally wrenching moral dilemmas that have no easy answers. Many decisions you make on a day-today basis also involve questions of right and wrong, some of which may have easy answers that are difficult to carry out. Ethics provides the basis for those decisions. Most people have an idea of what sorts of things are right and wrong. Explaining why you think something is right or wrong is altogether another question. The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves. Yet few people have adequately considered how they justify their conceptions of right and wrong.Finally, morality matters because debates on several issues, including abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, gun control, and capital punishment seem endless and irreconcilable, and they promise to continue far into the future. What many of these issues share is a fundamental disagreement over the ultimate source of moral authority. Some individuals hold that moral authority is ultimately a human construction, while others insist that moral authority comes from some transcendent source that is beyond human beings, such as a revelation from God or nature.As you read the newspaper and various news magazines and listen to television news, you will be increasingly aware of the importance of these issues. You will also notice that, apart from legal intervention, most of these issues are no closer to being resolved today than they were ten years ago.More people have an interest in ethics today than at any other time in the recent past. Some of that interest is due to the complex issues spawned by technology, while others have an alarming sense of a general moral decline in society.In addition, the numerous scandals that have rocked the business community and other professions have left some to ask if 'business ethics' and 'professional ethics' are indeed oxymora [plural: oxymorons; something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements]. Some people are aware of the need to stress ethics and character in various educational arenas, including public schools. Many are also realizing that the value-neutral approach to education is not actually value neutral at all, and some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible. Although there is a greater emphasis on character in view of well-publicized business ethics failures, ethics helps determine which character traits are admirable and worth cultivating.Ruggiero presents numerous ethical issues: Education, Media and the Arts, Sex, Government, Law, Business, Medicine, Science, and War. We will take a few cases to ponder.In Education, as in business, mistakes are sometimes made in promoting a person. For example, a respected high school teacher with twenty years of service may be made principal of his school. After serving for a year in this new capacity, the man may have demonstrated clearly that he is incompetent in administrative affairs. But, by that time, his former teaching position will have been filled. Consider the various ethical considerations involved both in retaining him and in firing him, and decide what course of action and what conditions would be the most ethical solution for the school board.Another case is, every academic subject has areas of controversy, questions that different schools of thought answer differently. For example, in psychology there are Freudian, Jungian, and Adlerian perspectives; in literature, there are several approaches to interpretation, such as the esthetic and the psychological. Is it ethically acceptable for an instructor to teach only the school of thought he or she personally accepts? Would your answer be different in the case of an introductory course than in the case of an advanced course?In Media and the Arts, most talent shows of the past presented contestants of obvious talent; less talented contestants were screened out in preliminary phases of competition. But modern talent shows often reverse this pattern—from all appearances, many contestants are selected precisely because they are remarkably untalented. As a result, they are held up to ridicule by the judges. Is it unethical for such shows to be produced? Is it unethical to watch them?Another case, traditionally, journalists were taught to keep their personal opinions out of their reporting. The place for opinion, it was stressed, was on the editorial page or in an opinion column. Today, that view has changed. Many journalists have not learned the traditional rule; others simply ignore it. Is the mixing of opinion and fact in news reports ethical? What about reporters using their opinions to decide whom to interview—in other words, interviewing only people who share their views?Next case, for a number of years, it has been widely recognized that TV has the potential to be the greatest educational device in history. (This includes not just what is presently considered educational TV, but commercial TV as well.) Does the TV industry have any moral obligation to realize that potential?In Sexual Education, in our culture, fornication (sexual intercourse between unmarried men and women) has traditionally been viewed as immoral. The reasons that have supported this judgment have ranged from religious prohibitions to practical considerations, such as the dangers of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The liberalization of religious views, the improvement of birth control techniques, and the development of antibiotics have resulted in a softening of the traditional judgment. The question of the rightness or wrongness of fornication is seldom hotly debated anymore. Yet it remains a debatable issue.Another case, sexual promiscuity is frequent indulgence in intercourse with a variety of partners, indiscriminately selected. Is promiscuity immoral?In Government, a businessman has signifi cant holdings in airline stock. He runs for Congress, is elected, and is about to serve on the House Government Activities and Transportation subcommittee, which holds hearings on airline industry issues, such as airline safety. Would it be ethical for him to continue to hold his airline stock?Another case, does the federal government have a moral obligation to cover the cost of health care for individuals who cannot afford health insurance or whose health insurance benefi ts have been exhausted? What about individuals who could have afforded health insurance but gambled that they would not suffer serious illness and now find themselves unable to afford health care?Lewis Vaughn, also discuss about this. Who should get health care, who should supply it, and who should pay for it? (Health care, in this context, includes medical treatment, disease prevention, emergency care, and public health measures.)This debate is not about the morality of individual actions and decisions; it’s about the morality of the policies and programs of a society as a whole. It arises from disturbing facts about the citizens of such a prosperous nation: millions afflicted with disease and disability have no access to health care, and many suffer and die as a result. Reality forces society to confront a host of related questions: What do we owe, if anything, to these millions? Are the more fortunate obligated to help those in need? Are citizens entitled only to the health care they can pay for out of their own pockets? Or should everyone—rich and poor— have access to health care? If they should, what level of health care should they have— the best that medical science can offer, the same care that rich people can buy, a bare minimum package of health care? Does everyone have a right to health care—such that a society’s failure to provide it would be morally wrong?The fundamental moral issue involved in the health care debate is justice, says Vaughn, which is about persons getting what is fair or what is their due. With an eye to justice, we condemn racial discrimination and unequal punishments for the same crime because justice demands impartiality—that is, it requires that equals be treated equally unless there is a morally relevant reason for treating them differently.Health care is expensive, which is why so many people do not have access to it: they cannot afford it. Health insurance exists to help people cover the expense of health care, but health insurance itself is expensive, which is why millions lack coverage.A plain fact of the moral life is that in ethical matters small and large, personal and abstract, we wrestle with issues of justice. Whatever our moral outlook, we must sometimes ask, What is just? Justice is about persons getting what is fair or what is their due. In the name of justice, we condemn racial discrimination, unequal pay for equal work, and judicial punishment based on a judge’s prejudice. For justice’s sake, we strive to treat people the same unless there is a morally relevant reason for treating them differently—that is, we try to treat equals equally. For reasons of justice, we act—or feel obliged to act—to change the way things are, to try to make the world or ourselves more just.And here is a case about free speech. Free speech— the right to express your opinions or ideas without burdensome restraints from government or society—is both a moral and a legal/political value. Most liberal democracies recognize their citizens’ right to free expression, and several international bodies have declared freedom of expression a human right. Here, 'speech' or 'expression' refers to a variety of actions, not just speaking, but writing, yelling, acting, painting, burning flags, carrying signs, singing, and more.The first point to understand about free speech is that it is not an absolute right. Every society places limits on free speech; speech must be limited when it conflicts with other values that society holds dear. Many free speech historians remind citizens of how much depends on their right to speak and write freely. If knowledge is to grow, people must be free to put forth ideas and theories they deem worthy of consideration, and others must be left equally free to criticize them. Even false ideas should be protected, that the truth will not become mere dogma, unchallenged and little understood.Free speech is also an essential feature of democratic government. Fair, democratic elections cannot occur unless candidates are free to debate and criticize each other’s policies, nor can government be run efficiently unless corruption and abuses can be exposed by a free press. Individual autonomy, is also served by free speech.So, should free speech on campus, in such a way, be thwarted? Should someone who expresses his opinion, even if it differs from the supporters of the regime, be jailed?In Business, is it ethical for liquor companies to create ads linking the consumption of liquor with friendship, popularity, love, and financial success?Other case, in the Middle Ages, the seller was considered responsible for defects in merchandise. Today, although the courts may give relief to a buyer if the defects are glaring, the basic rule is 'Let the buyer beware.' Is this rule more ethically defensible than the medieval rule?About Environmental Ethics, for most of its history, Western ethics has focused on the moral values, rights, and obligations of humans. The relevant questions have been, What is the good for humans? What value should we place on a human life or person? What obligations or duties do we have to our fellow humans? What moral rights, if any, do humans have? In large part, the rest of the planet seems to have been left out of our moral equations. The nonhuman animals, the plants, the waters, the land— these have mattered, if at all, largely because they affect the well- being of humankind.But the planet is not what it used to be. The world’s natural resources are being depleted. Human technology, culture, and avarice are devouring forests and meadows, poisoning water and air, wiping out ecosystems and species—and threatening the interests of the very beings who have wielded so much technological and cultural power. Some observers predict doom. They say that humans have gone too far and that the world as we know it will end not with a bang or a whimper, but a gasp: a gasp for uncontaminated air, water, or food. But whether the situation is or is not this dire, the profound environmental changes that humans have produced on earth have inspired many to see the proper purview of ethics as encompassing not just humans but the whole natural world. Consequently a new set of ethical questions is demanding our attention: Is the environment valuable in its own right, regardless of its usefulness for people? Do animals or plants have moral rights? Are they somehow intrinsically valuable? If they are intrinsically valuable or worthy of moral consideration, what makes them so? Does a dolphin have more moral value than a rat? or a rat more than a redwood? or an individual mongoose more than its species? What obligations, if any, do humans have to the natural world? Should the interests of people take precedence over the interests or needs of the environment? Is it morally permissible, for example, to halt the construction of a dam that will bring prosperity to thousands of poor people but will also destroy a species of crayfish?Then there are the questions that arise from the largest, most calamitous, most intractable environmental threat of all: climate change. It is the one environmental problem that is entangled with all the others, the one that humans are causing globally while suffering from it locally.There are still many ethical issues that are not disclosed here. Ethics as a distinct area of philosophical inquiry may of course be approached and understood in a number of ways. However, there is always a sense in which it arise both initially and practically from our hunger or thirst, in short our desire, to do what is right; this requires us not only to interrogate our motives routinely but also to scan the horizon widely and diligently for the possible outcomes of our actions. How does a self-perpetuating ‘me generation’ understand intergenerational justice and work towards its effective realization? How does a celebrity-obsessed culture learn to turn off the camera, microphone, mobile and laptop and start to dig and plant, if not for victory, then new forms of self-reliance and self-worth? Can the past be the new future?""As a closing," said Wulandari, "let's return to our fable of Caligula and his horse. Although Aesop doesn't mention it, our imagination can imagine the end of the fable. The flatterers barked, with folded hands, sneering mouth and cynical face, the horse still walked towards the awarding place. Of course, flatterers gain materialistically from their labors, but he who presents the right ethics will always get more than that. And gallantly, the horse stepped on his shoes, while humming,Simpan mawar yang kuberi[Keep the rose I've given]Mungkin wanginya mengilhami[Perhaps the fragrance inspires]Sudikah dirimu untuk kenali aku dulu?[Would you like to know me first?]Sebelum kau ludahi aku[Before you spit on me]Sebelum kau robek hatiku *)[Before you tore my heart]Time to go, before greeting with Salawat, Hamdalah and Salaam, Wulandari uttered, "And Allah knows best."
- Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, Thinking Critically About Ethical Issue, 2015, McGraw-Hill Education
- Steven Schuster, Improve Your Logic, Think More Critically, And Use Proven Systems To Solve Your Problems: Strategic Planning For Everyday Life, 2018, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
- Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2018, Zondervan
- Lewis Vaughn, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, 2019, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
- Harvey Segler, Critical Thinking: Powerful Strategies That Will Make You Improve Decisions And Think Smarter, 2015, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
- Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to The Foundation for Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools, 2008, The Foundation for Critical Thinking
- Linda Elder and Richard Paul, Asking Essential Questions: Based on Critical Thinking Concepts and Socratic Principles, 2019, Rowman & Littlefield
- Jonathan Haber, Critical Thinking, 2020, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Stella Cottrell, Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument, 2005, Palgrave
- Jennifer Lawrence and Lawrence Chester, Engage the Fox, 2014, Greenleaf Book Group Press
- Jennifer Gunning, Soren Holm and Ian Kenway [ed.], Ethics, Law and Society, Volume IV, 2009, MPG Books
- James Northcote, One Hundred Fables, Originals and Selected, 1829, J. Johnson
*) "Risalah Hati" written by Ahmad Dhani
[Session 2]
