•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Perkembangan yang tejadi di era digital ini memerlukan adanya pendekatan baru dalam etika karena keterbatasan etika tradisional, seperti deontologi dan utilitarianisme serta etika keutamaan, dalam menghadapi isu-isu kontemporer. Kritik filsuf Martin Heidegger terhadap esensi teknologi modern berpotensi menjadi titik awal pengembangan etika baru guna merespons persoalan-persoalan kontemporer terkait lingkungan, hegemoni teknologi, dan implikasi bisnis. Menurut Heidegger esensi teknologi modern adalah menampakkan segala sesuatu sebagai suku cadang yang siap digunakan atau dimanfaatkan untuk kepentingan subjek. Esensi teknologi modern ini menimbulkan bahaya karena bersifat eksploitatif yang berujung krisis ekologis dan alienasi sosial. Menanggapi masalah-masalah kontemporer, etika Heideggerian dapat dikembangkan berdasarkan pemahaman tentang dwelling dan keterbukaan kontemplatif terhadap eksistensi. Etika ini akan menekankan keterhubungan antara manusia, alam, dan dunia, yang akan membimbing kepada hubungan etis dengan sesama manusia dan lingkungan. Menjadikan filsafat Heidegger sebagai titik tolak pengembangan etika baru tidak tanpa tantangan yang serius, namun pengembangan filsafat Heidegger oleh para penerusnya di ranah teknologi dan lingkungan menunjukkan bahwa kemungkinan positif sangat bisa diharapkan.

References

Achterhuis, Hans. (2002). “Borgmann, Technology and the Good Life? and the Empirical Turn for Philosophy of Technology”, In Techné 6:1

Arendt, Hannah (1958). The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blitz, Mark.(2014). "Understanding Heidegger on Technology," The NewAtlantis, Number 41, Winter 2014, hlm. 63-80 (tautan: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology, diunduh pada 12 Januari 2017, 09.00 AM).

Borgmann, A. (2010). “Reality and Technology”. In Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 27- 35.

Borgmann, A. (2012). “The Collision of Plausibility with Reality: Lifting the Veil of the Ethical Neutrality of Technology”. In Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, 40-43.

Borgmann, A. (2013). “From Electrons and Logic Gates to Everyday Life: On the Asymmetry of Technological Devices”. In Synesis. A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 4-8.

Ciulla, Joanne B. (2009). “Leadership and the Ethics of Care”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 88, pp. 3–4.

Elley-Brown, Margie J. & Pringle, Judith K. (2021). “Sorge, Heideggerian Ethic of Care:

Creating More Caring Organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 168, pp. 23- 35.

Glazebrook, Trish. (2019). “Heidegger and Economics: Withdrawal of Being in Capital”, in DIVINATIO, volume 47, spring-summer (downloaded form www.beyng.com).

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and Time (John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, Trans.), Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Heidegger, Martin. (1966). “Memorial Address,” in Discourse on Thinking (John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund, Trans.), Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

Heidegger, Martin. (1971). 'Building Dwelling Thinking' in Poetry, Language, Thought (Albert Hofstadter, Trans), Harper Colophon, New York.

Heidegger, Martin. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology: and Other Essays (W. Lovitt,Trans.), Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York

Hodge, Joanna. (1995). Heidegger and Ethics, Routledge, London.

Introna, Lucas D. (2002). “The Question Concerning Information Technology, Thinking with Hedegger on the Essence of Information Technology”, in Internet Management Issues: A Global Perspective (Heynes, Ed), Idea GroupPublishing.

Jonas, Hans. (1979). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age (translation of Das Prinzip Verantwortung) trans. Hans Jonas and David Herr, University of Chicago Press.

Kuntjoro, Antonius Puspo. (2021) “Menyusun Etika Bisnis Relasional dan Kontekstual”.Forum Manajemen, [S.l.], v. 35, n. 1, p. 12-23.

Ladkin, D. (2006). “When Deontology and Utilitarianism Aren’t Enough: How Heidegger’s Notion of ‘Dwelling’ Might Help Organizational Leaders Resolve Ethical Issues”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 65, No. 1, April, pp. 87-98.

Lovelock, Brent and Lovelock, Kirsten M. (2013). The Ethics of Tourism--Critical and applied perspectives, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 201-202

Marco Lansiti & Karim R. Lakhani, “Managing Our Hub Economy”, Harvard Business Review, edition of September-Oktober 2017

McDougall, Uisdean Edward George. (2012). Heidegger and East Asia: Continuing the Dialogue. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

Nelson, Eric S. (2004). “Responding to Heaven and Earth: Daoism, Heidegger and Ecology”, Environmental Philosophy 1 (2), 65-74

Paul, Kalpita Bhar. (2017). “The Import of Heidegger’s Philosophy into Environmental Ethics- A Review”, in Ethics & Environment, 22, no. 2 (2017), 79–98.

Rentmeester, Casey. (2016). Heidegger and the Environment, Rowman & Littlefield International, London & New York.

Verbeek, Peter-Paul. (2002). “Devices of Engagement: On Borgmann’s Philosophy of Information and Technology,” in Techné 6:1

Sumber Websites:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hannah-Arendt. Diakses pada 26 Juli 2023, pk. 22.30.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/02/geoffrey-hinton-godfather-of-ai- quits-google-warns-dangers-of-machine- learning#:~:text=Dr%20Geoffrey%20Hinton%2C%20who%20with,his%20contribution%20to%20the%20field. Diakses pada 26 Juli 2023, pk. 22.45.

Download

Share

COinS