Main Article Content

Abstract




Purpose of this research was to assess how ones make moral judgment in moral dilemma situation if both aspect, receive and reject, were equal. This research was conduct by two studies and the purpose of irst study is to identify evil and good behavior with their own reason. Meanwhile the purpose of second study was to evaluate how ones judge dilemma that create from irst study, which are made of good action with evil reason and evil action with good reason. Method used in irst study was survey to 32 research participants and method for second study was experiment to 53 participants. The irst study was resulting eight evil behavior and six good behaviors that most mentioned by participants with 12 most common reason on each group. Result for second study was ones judge situations of dilemma moral as evil. These results showed that good cannot be combined with evil in one dilemma and it will be judged as evil whatever the order. Based on these indings, ones moral will judge dilemma as evil ifboth side, good and evil, in equal position.




Keywords

moral penilaian moral dilema moral kebaikan kejahatan moral moral judgment moral dilemma good evil

Article Details

How to Cite
El Hafiz, S. (2020). A tiny dot of evil causes a huge amount of goodness. Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat: Indonesian Journal of Indigenous Psychology, 1(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.24854/jpu18

References

  1. Burns, Stuart A. (2008). Moral Judgment. http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0402.htm (accessed: March 30, 2011).
  2. Dauenhauer, B.P. (2007). Responding to Evil. The Southern Journal of Philosophy. Memphis: Summer 2007. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 207-222. ProQuest document ID: 1297478521. Accessed: 16 Februari 2010.
  3. Dien, D.S. (1997). Worldviews and Morality; How Do They Intersect?. Human Development. Basel: Nov/Dec 1997. Vol. 40, Iss. 6; pg. 345-349. ProQuest document ID: 25330572. Accessed: 24 Februari 2010.
  4. El Haiz, S. (2003). Dinamika Moral pada Santri di Pondok Pesantren Darunnajah, Jakarta, Skripsi. Universitas
  5. Diponegoro. Tidak diterbitkan.
  6. Haidth, J. dan S. Kesebir. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (eds.). Handbook of Social
  7. Psychology. 5th edition. Hobeken NJ.: Wiley. Pg. 797-832.
  8. Hare, R. D. (1993). Without Conscience. New York: Pocket Books.
  9. Helmuth, L. (2001). Moral Reasoning Relies on Emotion. Science. Washington: Sep 14, 2001. Vol. 293, Iss. 5537; pg. 1971-1972. ProQuest document ID: 8197617. Accessed: 16 Februari 2010.
  10. Krause, K.W. (2009). Prosocial Maintenance in The Age of Religious Decline, The Humanist. Washington, DC: Mar/Apr 2009. Vol. 69, Iss. 2; pg. 41-42. ProQuest document ID: 1652076431. Accessed: 19 Februari 2010.
  11. Miller, J. G. (1997). Understanding of the Role of Worldview in Morality. Human Development. Basel: Nov/ Dec 1997. Vol. 40, Iss. 6; pg. 350-354. ProQuest document ID: 25330576. Accessed: 24 Februari 2010.
  12. Nucci, L. (2002). Because It is The Right Thing to Do. Human Development. Basel: Mar/Apr 2002. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 125-129. ProQuest document ID: 117846907. Accessed: 24 Februari 2010.
  13. Schwartz, E. (2004). Why Some Ask Why. Judaism. New York: Summer 2004. Vol. 53, Iss. 3/4; pg. 230- 240. ProQuest document ID: 924574411. Accessed: 24 Februari 2010.
  14. Shaughnessy, J.J., E.B. Zechmeister, & J.S. Zechmeister. (2007). Metodologi Penelitian Psikologi (Terj.: H.P. Soetjipto dan S.M. Soetjipto). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  15. Silke, A. (2004). Courage in Dark Places; Relections on Terrorist Psychology. Social Research. New York: Spring 2004. Vol. 71, Iss. 1; pg. 177-198. ProQuest document ID: 635862181. Accessed: 24 Februari 2010.
  16. Suharsono. (2000). Pengalaman-pengalaman Personal Malu dan Rasa Bersalah. Tesis. Jakarta: Fakultas Psikologi UI (tidak diterbitkan).