PENYELESAIAN KONFLIK MORAL

Values Analysis the Coombs approach Identifying and clarifying the value question Assembling purported facts Assessing the truth of purported facts Clarifying the relevance of facts Arriving at a tentative value decision Testing the value principle implied in the decision the Fraenkel strategy What is this incident about? What happened here? (Dilemma) What could/might you do in this situation? (Alternatives) If you were to do this, what might happen as a result? (Consequences) If that happens, then what might happen (i.e. what might be additional short- and long-term effects)? (Consequences of consequences) What evidence is there that these will occur? (Evidence) Which consequences would be good? Bad? Why? Measured against what criteria? (Assessment) What do you think you should do? Why?

12 Questions for Examining an Ethical Decision 1. Have you defined the problem correctly? 2. How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence? 3. How did this situation occur in the first place? 4. To whom and to what do you give your loyalty as a person and as a member of the organization? 5. What is your intention in making this decision? 6. How does this intention compare with the probable results? 7. Whom could your decision or action injure? 8. Can you discuss the problem with the affected parties before you make your decision? 9. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now? 10. Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your superiors, your family, society as a whole? 11. What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? If misunderstood? 12. What conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?

7 Guidelines for Ethical Decision Making Is the problem/dilemma really what it appears to be? If you are not sure, find out. Is the action you are considering legal? Ethical? If you are not sure, find out. Do you understand the position of those who oppose the action you are considering? Is it reasonable? Whom does the action benefit? Harm? How much? How long? Would you be willing to allow everyone to do what you are considering doing? Have you sought the opinion of others who are knowledgeable on the subject and who would be objective? Would your action be embarrassing to you if it were made known to your family, friends, coworkers, or superiors?

YOU SHOULD LOOK AFTER YOUR BOSS’S OFFICE IN HIS SHORT ABSENCE OF ABOUT THREE HOURS Your secretary has just quite badly cut one of her fingers and should have treatment at the hospital. You are the only one in the office who can take her to the hospital. You have already promised to spend the time discussing an urgent problem (involving an inspection of equipments situated in the branch office 20 km away) with two of your subordinates. You want to continue writing a short report.

You should be spared the air sickness planes give you. AS REQUESTED BY YOUR SUPERIOR, YOU SHOULD ATTEND A CONFERENCE NEXT SCHOOL VACATION, FLYING TO AND FROM PENANG, THE DESTINATION You should be spared the air sickness planes give you. You have to take your family for a one-week holiday in Malacca during school vacation. At the same time you have already arranged a crucial meeting with a busy and important client.

ATAN IS YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER ATAN IS YOUR BUSINESS PARTNER. YOU FOUND THAT HE HAS BEEN FALSELY ADVERTISING YOUR COLLEGE. Honesty vs Profit What would you do?

a) Urge him to discontinue such a practice b) End your current partnership with him c) Let it be so as not to risk the college’s account (profit)

DIVERGENCE & CONFLICT Whenever one set of reasons lead to the conclusion that one action should be taken whereas a second set suggests that a distinct action should be taken, the result is DIVERGENCE. What we would do in following the first set of reasons is simply different from, but not incompatible with, what we would do in following a second set. Hence divergence does not necessarily imply conflict, in fact, we can often resolve any tension by simply doing both of the recommended actions. CONFLICT is, whenever different sets of reasons lead not only to divergent recommendations but to logically contradicting ones, that is, following the one recommendation means or entails not following the other.

The strategy of DISSOLUTION Involves developing alternatives that would avoid the problem. It is built upon flexibility and it also makes a virtue of foresight. Accommodates by performing both actions (tension caused by divergence without conflict) Take other action(s) if any (tension caused by undesirable consequences of either of two alternative courses) Change the circumstances or the means (tension arises between two aims owing to present circumstances or to the means chosen) (Some conflicts are unavoidable, especially given circumstances over which one is forced to live; in general, many consequences of one’s actions are uncontrollable because they are unforeseeable . Dissolution is also limited as a strategy because it does not build character)

You are a labour union leader You are a labour union leader. Some of the union members hold insecure jobs and are frequently laid off. No welfare programmes provide funds for those laid off. To this group of members, job security is very important because they could face starvation without it. The union also has a group of highly trained and much desired workers whose labour is always in demand. To this group of members, job security is not really an issue because they are confident they will always have it. They want you to demand an increased number of weekends and holidays. The union is thus faced with a problem. As a union leader, what would you do?

The strategy of HIERARCHY-BUILDING When two/more values cannot both/all be realized, then those values have to be ranked from most to least important, i.e. value hierarchies must be built. To justify the formation of this hierarchy, it is necessary for there to be some objective criteria as follows: *more encompassing – if one’s action could be said to contain not only one desired value but another desired value besides, then that action could thereby be said to be the better for being the richer. *more fundamental – if a fundamental value is not realized, then another, less fundamental value, cannot be realized; if the less fundamental value is realized, then the more fundamental value can be or has been realized. (The problem is that conflicting values do not always neatly form hierarchies)

You are offered a position with a company in Vietnam, starting on April 1, 2010. It is the kind of job that you want, the kind that you have studied for. But you have made other commitments. You have accepted a position with XYZ and will report for duty on Jan 2, 2009. You cannot break your word with XYZ, contracts are contracts. Once you have made a commitment, you do not go back on it. But that opportunity with the Vietnam Co.! A better job, higher pay, and management potential. With Vietnam Co., you will meet new people, learn about new cultures; it is more than just a job. With XYZ, you will be locked in. There is less chance for personal growth. After a year or two, you will know your job and will probably want to move anyway. However, you are not sure. The situation in Vietnam is not very stable yet. What if you are back on the streets looking for work in two years because Vietnam Co. has been nationalized or something? WHAT IS YOUR DECISION?

The strategy of COMPROMISE Each of the value should be actualized in some degree No rational hierarchy is available, either of the values in conflict or of the persons whose interest should take first place Tension between the values cannot be dissolved (Not all contested values can be realized in degree. Compromise will regularly tend to promote a degree of injustice in favour of the powerful)

Ahmad, a student of yours, is about to graduate from school Ahmad, a student of yours, is about to graduate from school. His life has been punctuated with problems. As well as underachievement in his subjects his behaviour has included lateness, he pays little attention in class and exhibits aggressive tendencies with his peers. He has been disruptive in class and fought with other students. Your teachers have made extra efforts to help Ahmad; and you don’t think that his academic and behaviour problems are due to some kind of a lower intelligence problem. Now that Ahmad is approaching graduation, he has an opportunity to go into a plumbing apprenticeship programme. The master plumber in this programme phones you and asks for detailed information about Ahmad’s abilities, his grades in school and his behaviour. You didn’t know that Ahmad was going to apply for this programme and you don’t know the master plumber personally. Apparently, there are a lot of applications, so the master plumber can decide who fits the job best. You are aware of the fact that it is very difficult to find an apprenticeship these days. The master plumber will talk to you again on the phone at 16:45 today regarding the detailed information about Ahmad. What are you going to answer? WHY is your answer such?

The “Aminah Dilemma” describes the working relationship between two teachers on a staff: Aminah and Taib. Aminah, recently hired, is described as full of good ideas and enthusiasm. Taib, with whom Aminah will be working, has many years’ experience and is well-liked by students and fellow teachers alike. Their working relationship, however, does not develop well. Aminah finds herself working alone on many of the tasks they were to share. Their conflict surfaces when Taib receives the credit for a play written and prepared mainly by Aminah. Yesterday, Aminah received a phone call from the principal of the school where she formerly worked. It turns out that Taib has applied for a position as vice-principal at Aminah’s former school. The principal would like to know Aminah’s opinion of Taib by 14:45 today. What would you tell the principal, if you were Aminah? WHY would you say so?

Pendidik profesional yang matang dari segi moral ialah agen moral, yang boleh diterangkan sebagai individu yang peka serta memahami tentang keperluan terhadap peraturan tertentu dalam organisasinya, dan mempunyai keperibadian mulia yang sesuai untuk berkhidmat dalam organisasinya itu. Dia berhati-hati dalam membuat pertimbangan, atau pentaakulan, berdasarkan prinsip keadilan dan perasaan kepedulian, dan dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan akauntabiliti, bertingkah laku atau mengambil tindakan yang wajar. Agen moral ini juga berkebolehan meneliti situasi yang mengandungi isu atau dilema moral. Selain itu, dia berketrampilan dalam menangani isu dan merungkai konflik moral.

BYE