PRINSIP ETIS, UJI CEPAT, DAN PANDUAN PEMBUAT KEPUTUSAN

2.1 PENALARAN ETIS DAN PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN MORAL

Ethical reasoning helps determine and diff erentiate between right thinking, decisions, and
actions and those that are wrong, hurtful and/or harmful— to others and to ourselves. Ethics is
based on and motivated by values, beliefs, emotions, and feelings as well as facts. Ethical actions
also involve conscientious reasoning of facts based on moral standards and principles. Business
ethics refers to applying ethical reasoning and principles to commercial activities that are often
profit- oriented.

Three Criteria in Ethical Reasoning, yaitu;

1. Moral reasoning must be logical. Assumptions and premises, both factual and inferred, used
to make judgments should be known and made explicit.

2. Factual evidence cited to support a person’s judgment should be accurate, relevant, and
complete.

3. Ethical standards used in reasoning should be consistent. When inconsistencies are

discovered in a person’s ethical standards in a decision, one or more of the standards must be
modified.

Moral Responsibility Criteria

major aim of ethical reasoning is to gain a clear focus on problems to facilitate acting in morally
responsible ways. Individuals are morally responsible for the harmful eff ects of their actions
when;

1. they knowingly and freely acted or caused the act to happen and knew that the act was
morally wrong or hurtful to others and

2. they knowingly and freely failed to act or prevent a harmful act, and they knew it would be
morally wrong for a person to do this
Although no universal definition of what constitutes a morally wrong act exists, an act and the
consequences of an act can be defined as morally wrong if physical or emotional harm is done to
another as a result of the act. Two conditions that eliminate a person’s moral. As we know from
court trials, proving intent for an alleged illegal act is not an easy matter.

2.2 Prinsip Etis dan Pengambilan Keputusan Wawasan Etis

In this section, fi ve fundamental principles used in ethical reasoning that are both classic and
timely are discussed to solve dilemmas in everyday life as well as in complex business situations.

Summary of Five Ethical Decision- Making Principles with Stakeholder Analysis

Belief Systems Source of Moral Activity Stakeholder Analysis Issues

Utilitarianism (Calculation of Moral authority is determined 1. Consider collective as well
Costs and Benefi ts) by the consequences of an act: as par tic u lar interests.
An act is morally right if the
net benefi ts over costs are 2. Formulate alternatives
greatest for the majority. Also, based on the greatest good for
the greatest good for the all parties involved.
greatest number must result 3. Estimate costs and benefi ts
from this act. of alternatives for groups
affected.
Universalism (Duty) Moral authority is determined 1. Identify individuals whose
by the extent to which the needs and welfare are at risk
intention of an act treats all with a given policy or
persons with respect. Includes decision.
the requirement that everyone 2. Identify the use or misuse
would act this way in the same of manipulation, force,
circumstances. coercion, or deceit that may be
harmful to individuals.
3. Identify duties to
individuals affected by the
decision.
 4. Determine if the desired
action or policy would be
acceptable to individuals if the
decision were implemented.
Rights (Individual Moral authority is determined 1. Identify individuals and
Entitlement) by individual rights their rights that may be
guaranteed to all in their violated by a particular action.
pursuit of freedom of speech, 2. Determine the legal and
choice, happiness, and self- moral basis of these individual
respect. rights.
3. Determine the moral justifi
cation from utilitarian
principles if individuals’ rights
are violated.
Justice (Fairness and Equity) Moral authority is determined 1. If a par tic u lar action is
by the extent opportunities, chosen, how equally will costs
wealth, and burdens are fairly and benefi ts be distributed to
distributed among all. stakeholders?
2. How clear and fair are the
procedures for distributing the
costs and benefi ts of the
decision?
3. How can those who are
unfairly affected by the action
be compensated?
Virtue Ethics (Character- Moral authority is based on 1. What are the “character
Based Virtues) individual character virtues virtues” of the individual
such as truthfulness, integrity, takeholder(s), the policy,
and honesty. An act, policy, procedure, or strategy in
strategy is moral if it refl ects question?
 these types of virtues. 2. If a par tic u lar action,
policy, strategy is chosen, to
what extent will these virtues
be evident, or missing?
3. While seeking a mutually
desirable outcome in a confl
icting situation, how can confl
icting character values and
characteristics that are
embedded and/or refl ected in
a decision, policy, or strategy
be avoided or negotiated?

Utilitarianism: A Consequentialist (Results- Based) Approach

Utilitarianisme sebagai teori sistematis pertama kali dipaparkan oleh Jeremy Bentham dan
muridnya, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianisme merupakan suatu paham etis yang berpendapat
bahwa yang baik adalah yang berguna, berfaedah, dan menguntungkan Sebaliknya, yang jahat
atau buruk adalah yang tak bermanfaat, tak berfaedah, dan merugikan. Utilitarianisme juga
mencakup prinsip-prinsip berikut:

1. An action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

2. An action is morally right if the net benefi ts over costs are greatest for all aff ected, compared
with the net benefi ts of all other possible choices.

3. An action is morally right if its benefi ts are greatest for each individual and if these benefi ts
outweigh the costs and benefi ts of the alternatives.

There are also two types of criteria used in utilitarianism:

1. rule- based and act- based. Rule- based utilitarianism argues that general principles are used
as criteria for deciding the greatest benefit to be achieved from acting a certain way.
2. Act- based utilitarians, on the other hand, analyze a par tic u lar action or behavior to
determine whether the greatest utility or good can be achieved.

Utilitarian concepts are widely practiced by government policy makers, economists, and business
professionals. Utilitarianism is a useful principle for conducting a stakeholder analysis, because
it forces decision makers to;

1. consider collective as well as par tic u lar interests,

2. formulate alternatives based on the greatest good for all parties involved in a decision, and

3. estimate the costs and benefi ts of alternatives for the aff ected groups.

Problems with utilitarianism include the following:

1. No agreement exists about the defi nition of “good” for all concerned.

2. No agreement exists about who decides.

3. The actions are not judged, but rather their consequences.

4. potentially harmful eff ects of an action cannot be mea sured in the short term, but the action
is believed to have potentially long- term eff ects,

5. Utilitarianism does not consider the individual.

6. The principles of justice and rights are ignored in utilitarianism. The principle of justice is
concerned with the distribution of good, not the amount of total good in a decision.

Even given these problems, the principle of utilitarianism is still valuable under some conditions:
when resources are fi xed or scarce; when priorities are in confl ict; when no clear choice fulfi lls
everyone’s needs; and when large or diverse collectives are involved in a zero- sum decision,
that is, when a gain for some corresponds to a loss for others.

Universalism: A Deontological (Duty- Based) Approach

Kant’s principle of the categorical imperative, unlike utilitarianism, places the moral authority
for taking action on an individual’s duty toward other individuals and “humanity.” The
categorical imperative consists of two parts. The first part states that a person should choose to
act if and only if she or he would be willing to have every person on earth, in that same
situation, act exactly that way. This principle is absolute and allows for no qualifi cations across
situations or circumstances.

The second part of the categorical imperative states that, in an ethical dilemma, a person should
act in a way that respects and treats all others involved as ends as well as means to an end.
Kant’s categorical imperative forces decision makers to take into account their duty to act
responsibly and respectfully toward all individuals in a situation. Individual human welfare is a
primary stake in any decision. Decision makers must also consider formulating their justifi
cations as principles to be applied to everyone

The major weaknesses of universalism and Kant’s categorical imperative include these
criticisms:

1. these principles are imprecise and lack practical utility. It is difficult to think of all humanity
each time one must make a decision in an ethical dilemma.

2. it is hard to resolve confl icts of interest when using a criterion that states that all individuals
must be treated equally.

Rights: A Moral and Legal Entitlement- Based Approach

Legal rights are entitlements that are limited to a particular legal system and jurisdiction. Moral
and legal rights are linked to individuals, and in some cases, groups, not to societies, as is the
case with a utilitarian ethic. Moral rights are also connected with duties, that is, my moral rights
imply that others have a duty toward me to not violate those rights, and vice versa. Moral rights
also provide the freedom to pursue one’s interests, as long as those interests do not violate
others’ rights. Moral rights also allow individuals to justify their actions and seek protection
from others in doing so.

There are also special rights and duties, or contractual rights. Contracts provide individuals with
mutually binding duties that are based on a legal system with defi ned transactions and
boundaries. Moral rules that apply to contracts include:
1. the contract should not commit the parties to unethical or immoral conduct;

2. both parties should freely and without force enter the contractual agreement;

3. neither individual should misrepresent or misinterpret facts in the contract; and

4. both individuals should have complete knowledge of the nature of the contract and its terms
before they are bound by it.

Finally, the concept of negative and positive rights defi nes yet another dimension of ethical
principles.A negative right refers to the duty others have to not interfere with actions related to
a person’s rights. positive right imposes a duty on others to provide for your needs to achieve
your goals, not just protect your right to pursue them.

Justice: Procedures, Compensation, and Retribution

Richard DeGeorge identifi es four types of justice:

1. Compensatory justice concerns compensating someone for a past harm or injustice.

2. Retributive justice means serving punishment to someone who has infl icted harm on another.

3. Distributive justice refers to the fair distribution of benefi ts and burdens.

4. Procedural justice designates fair decision practices, procedures, and agreements among
parties.

These four types of justice are part of the larger principle of justice. How they are formulated and
applied varies with societies and governmental systems.

Virtue Ethics: Character- Based Virtues

Virtue ethics mainly deals with the honesty and morality of a person. It states that practicing
good habits such as honesty, generosity makes a moral and virtuous person. It guides a person
without specific rules for resolving the ethical complexity. It is grounded in good character,
motives, and core values. Virtue ethics argue that the possessor of good character is and acts
moral, feels good, is happy, and flourishes. Practical wisdom, however, is often required to be
virtuous. It is part of practical wisdom to know how to secure real benefits effectively; those who
have practical wisdom will not make the mistake of concealing

The Common Good

The common good has been defined as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow
social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own
fulfi llment.” Examples of the common good include the health care system, legislative and
judicial systems, po liti cal, economic, and legal systems, and the physical environment. These
systems exist at the local, regional, national, and global levels.

The ethic of the common good suggests that decision makers take into consideration the intent as
well as the eff ects of their actions and decisions on the broader society and the common good of
the many.

Ethical Relativism: A Self- Interest Approach

Ethical relativism holds that no universal standards or rules can be used to guide or evaluate the
morality of an act. This view argues that people set their own moral standards for judging their
actions. Only the individual’s self- interest and values are relevant for judging his or her
behavior. This form of relativism is also referred to as naive relativism. The point behind this
principle is that individual standards are the basis of moral authority.

The logic of ethical relativism also extends to cultures. Cultural relativism argues that “when in
Rome, do as the Romans do.” What is morally right for one society or culture may be wrong for
another.

The benefi t of ethical and cultural relativism is that they recognize the distinction between
individual and social values and customs. However, relativism can lead to several problems.
Individuals who justify their morality only from their personal beliefs, without taking into
consideration other ethical principles, may use the logic of relativism as an excuse for not having
or developing moral standards. Second, this view contradicts everyday experience. Moral
reasoning is developed from conversation, interaction, and argument.
Immoral, Amoral, and Moral Management

In addition to the classic ethical principles, three broad, straight moral orientations that can be
applied to individuals, groups, and organizations are: immorality, amorality, and morality.

1. Managing immorally means intentionally going against the ethical principles of justice and
fair and equitable treatment of other stakeholder

2. Amoral management happens when own ers, supervisors, and managers treat shareholders,
outside stakeholders, and employees without concern or care for the consequences of their
actions.

3. Moral management places value on fair treatment of shareholders, employees, customers,

and other stakeholders. Ethics codes are established, communicated, and included in training;
employee rights are built into visible policies that are enforced; and employees and other
stakeholders are treated with respect and trust.

2.3 Empat Peran Tanggung Jawab Sosial

The four social responsibility modes refl ect business roles toward stockholders and a wider
audience of stakeholders. Notice the two distinct social responsibility orientations of businesses
and managers toward society: the stockholder model (the primary responsibility of the
corporation to its economic stockholders) and the stakeholder model (the responsibility of the
corporation to its social stakeholders outside the corporation). The two sets of motives
underlying these two orientations are “self- interest” and “moral duty.”

M ORIENTATIONS
O
T Stockholder Stakeholder
I Model Model
V 1 Produktivisme 2 Progresifisme
Self-Interest
E
S Moral Duty 3 Kedermawanan 4 Idealisme Etis
1. Productivists (yang memegang etika pasar bebas)

Melihat tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan dalam hal kepentingan pribadi yang rasional dan
pemenuhan langsung kepentingan pemegang saham. Pasar bebas menghargai dasar ganjaran dan
hukuman dalam oranisasi. Etika ini menggerakkan visi, misi, nilai-nilai, kebijakan, dan
keputusan internal dan eksternal termasuk gaji, promosi, dan penurunan jabatan. Produktifis
percaya yang utama dan, beberapa orang akan mengatakan, hanya misi bisnis adalah untuk
mendapatkan keuntungan.

Meskipun semua prinsip etika yang dibahas sebelumnya dapat digunakan oleh para pemimpin
organisasi dalam masing-masing mode tanggung jawab ini, para productivist mungkin
menemukan diri mereka menganjurkan penggunaan hak negatif untuk mempromosikan
kebijakan yang melindungi kepentingan pemegang saham atas hak-hak positif yang akan
membebani pembayar pajak dan menggunakan sumber daya pemerintah untuk membantu
mereka yang lebih tergantung secara ekonomi pada layanan pemerintah — yang, menurut
pendapat para ahli produksi, menambah beban ekonomi pada sistem pasar bebas. Etika berbasis
pasar bebas digunakan secara luas oleh manajer dan manajer sendiri yang harus membuat
keputusan sulit di tempat kerja.

2. Progressivism

Progresifis percaya perilaku perusahaan dimotivasi oleh kepentingan pribadi, tetapi mereka juga
berpendapat bahwa korporasi harus mengambil pandangan yang lebih luas tentang tanggung
jawab terhadap perubahan sosial. Paus mungkin dianggap sebagai idealis etis. Kepentingan
pribadi yang tercerahkan adalah nilai yang juga menjadi ciri progresif.

3. Philanthropy

Para dermawan, yang juga memiliki pandangan pemegang saham terhadap korporasi,
berpendapat bahwa tanggung jawab sosial dapat dibenarkan dalam hal kewajiban moral untuk
membantu anggota masyarakat yang kurang beruntung melalui atau amal sosial dan pengurusan
yang dikurangi pajak. Pendukung pandangan ini percaya bahwa peran sosial utama perusahaan
masih untuk mendapatkan keuntungan. Namun, tugas moral mendorong motif mereka alih-alih
kepentingan diri sendiri (pandangan productivist). Pendukung pandangan ini adalah penatalayan
dan percaya bahwa mereka yang memiliki kekayaan harus membaginya dengan orang-orang
yang kurang beruntung. Sebagai pemegang saham, filantropis berbagi keuntungan terutama
melalui kegiatan yang dapat dikurangkan dari pajak.

4. Ethical Idealism

idealis etis percaya bahwa tanggung jawab sosial dibenarkan kapan perilaku perusahaan secara
langsung mendukung kepentingan pemangku kepentingan.

Of course, as noted previously, a spectrum of beliefs exists for each of these four modes.
For example, ethical idealists profess diff erent visions regarding the obligations of business to
society. Progressivists and ethical idealists generally tend to base their moral authority on legal
and moral rights, justice, and universalism. Or gan i za tion al leaders and professionals are
obviously concerned with the operational solvency and even profi tability (especially for- profit
firms) of their companies. Still, they tend to believe that stakeholder interests and welfare are
necessary parts of the economic system’s eff ectiveness and success.

2.4 Tingkat Penalaran Etis dan Pengambilan Keputusan Moral

Memahami sifat dilema etis, sumber dan siapa yang terkena dampaknya adalah langkah-langkah
penting untuk merespons. Dalam bagian ini, tiga tingkat atau dimensi dilema etis dijelaskan
untuk menjaga dari "pandangan picik" ketika mengalami atau menganalisis dilema etis. Banyak
masalah dan dilema etis dihasilkan dari tekanan yang dialami pada empat tingkatan:the personal
level, yaitu:

(1) the personal level,

(2) the company or organizational level,

(3) the industry level, and

(4) the societal, international, and global levels.

2.5 Mengidentifikasi dan Mengatasi Dilema Etis Wawasan Etis

Decision choices presented by an ethical dilemma usually involve solutions that do not satisfy all
stakeholders. In some situations, there may be a resolution to an ethical dilemma that is the
“right” thing to do, although none of the stakeholders’ material interests are benefi ted. Ethical
dilemmas that involve many stakeholders require a reasoning pro cess that clearly states the
dilemma objectively, and then proceeds to articulate the issues and diff erent solution
alternatives. Deciding what is right and wrong in an international context also involves
understanding laws and customs, and the level of economic, social, and technological
development of the nation or region involved.

Moral Creativity

Moral creativity or imagination relates to the need for and skill of recognizing the complexity of
some ethical dilemmas that involve interlocking, conflicting interests, and relationships from the
point of view of the person, group, and/or or ga ni za tion facing a decision to be made.
Creativity is required to gain perspective among the diff erent stakeholders and their interests to
sort out and evaluate harmful eff ects among diff erent alternative actions.

Ethical Dilemma Problem Solving

A range of decision- making resources can help you evaluate moral possibilities and insights
when resolving ethical dilemmas. Change begins with having an awareness that can help build
confi dence by perceiving dilemmas before they are played out and assists you in negotiating
solutions with a moral dimension.

12 Questions to Get Started

1. Have you defi ned the problem accurately?

2. How would you defi ne the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?

3. How did the situation occur?

4. To whom and to what do you give your loyalty as a person and as a member of the
corporation?
 5. What is your intention in making this decision?

6. How does this intention compare with the probable results?

7. Who could your decision injure?

8. Can you discuss the problem with the aff ected parties before you make your decision?

9. Are you confi dent that your decision will be valid over a long period?

10. Could you disclose, without qualm, your decision?

11. What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? If misunderstood?

12. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions?

The above questions can help individuals openly discuss the responsibilities necessary to solve
ethical problems

2..6 Gaya Pengambilan Keputusan Etis Individual

Individual ethical decision- making styles may also be based on what Stanley Krolick defi ned as
(1) individualism,

individualists are driven by natural reason, personal survival, and preservation.The self is the
source and justifi cation of all actions and decisions.

(2) altruism,

Altruists are concerned primarily with other people. Altruists relinquish their own personal
security for the good of others. They would, as an extreme, like to ensure the future of the human
race. The altruist’s moral authority and motivation is to produce the greatest good for the largest
number of people.

(3) pragmatism, and

Pragmatists are concerned primarily with the situation at hand, not with the self or the other. The
pragmatist’s bases for moral authority and motivation are the perceived needs of the moment and
the potential consequences of a decision in a specifi c context. The needs of the moment dictate
the importance of self- interest, concern for others, rules, and values.

(4) idealism.

Idealists are driven by principles and rules. Reason, relationships, or the desired consequences of
an action do not substitute for the idealist’s adherence to principles. Duties are absolute.
Idealists’ moral authority and motivation are commitment to principles and consistency.