One of the great difficulties in trying to talk about ethics in design, and
to take ethical principles into design, is that it is very difficult to talk
and come to an agreement about ethics itself. It is for instance
notoriously difficult to come up with a good definition of 'good'.
(Anscombe's 1958 Modern Moral Philosophy -
http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html - gives a good
description of the tangle that moral philosophy has got into.)

The understanding of ethics I find most satisfactory is that of
existentialism: there is an emphasis in Sartre and Kiekegaard and others on
our responsibility to choose for ourselves. Sartre's famous example,
in Existentialism
and Humanism, of the young man choosing between two competing and mutually
exclusive duties concludes with 'You are free, therefore choose - that is to
say invent. No rule of general morality can show you what you ought to
do.'

This leads to an emphasis on the design of ethics, or rather, our design of
our attempt at ethical behaviour. Therefore I think it is worth us thinking
about what design can bring to ethics rather than, or at least as well as,
the other way round.


Ben.


On 05/04/07, Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> To the two Schools of Ethics you mention (from Aristotle,
> and Utilitarianism) I'd add a third, Kant's. (There are
> more, but I'm no Ethics scholar.)
>
> I go with Kant, who (again, roughly) puts duty at the
> centre of moral behaviour: humans are bound, by a knowledge
> of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical
> imperative to respect other rational beings--some words
> I've paraphrased from a precis of Kant, which I would
> re-state as: we have an always present, in escapable
> responsibility to respect others as human beings.
>
> When I come across bad designs, which is often, I think
> we might usefully rob the "First, do no harm" from
> medicine--mangle it a little--and have for us designers:
>
> First, great no unhappiness.
>
> Like the "first do no harm" in medicine, this is easy to
> state, and agree to, but far from easy to do, always.
> So, a good, broad study of designs, as Victor urges, might
> also do something for the ethical practices of
> contemporary designing. What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim
> Donostia / San Sebastián
> The Basque Country
>
> ========================================================
>
> At 15:13 +1000 4/4/07, Chris Brisbin wrote:
> >Dear Ken, Tim, & all,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >This issue of ethics has fascinated me for some
> >time, or rather its conscious and/or unconscious
> >agency upon judgement. It is fundamentally at
> >the root of every decision that we make as
> >free-thinking humans, whether we choose to
> >acknowledge it or not, but an issue that we
> >generally do not discuss in any detail within
> >the design disciplines [well, at least not
> >within Architecture]. Some of the posts around
> >this topic throw 'ethics' around as an
> >all-encompassing term to justify belief systems,
> >but a belief system actually has little to do
> >with ethics. Morals and Ethics are often
> >semantically conjoined, and are often used to
> >define one another in a sort of cyclic ying and
> >yang, but ethics are far more socially
> >altruistic than is generally acknowledged in
> >discourse outside of philosophy. We need to be
> >very specific about the kind of ethics that we
> >are discussing here when we are talking about
> >design judgements and decision, as there should
> >always be conscious consideration of an ethical
> >obligation to an 'other' which reflects our own
> >desire to be in turn treated with fairness and
> >equity.
> >
> >The historical definitions of ethics espoused by
> >Socrates and Aristoltle supported the theory
> >that 'happiness' should be the ultimate end to
> >any ethical consideration; Spinoza believed that
> >God provided the greatest 'happiness' to the
> >greatest number, or more recently Jeremy
> >Bentham's Utilitarianism theories of the
> >nineteenth-century that sought to provide the
> >greatest level of 'happiness' to the greatest
> >number of citizens through his behavioural
> >standards. At the core of these definitions, or
> >rather understandings of ethics, is the common
> >believe that the search for 'happiness' should
> >be the goal of any ethical principle. But why
> >should happiness preferences count as ethical in
> >our judgements? A clear ethical dilemma emerges;
> >if we uphold the 'pursuit of happiness' as the
> >highest moral good, then we will find it
> >difficult to justify resisting anything that
> >impedes or interferes with our pursuit as
> >'morally unacceptable'. If we are all only
> >interested in ourselves and what makes us happy,
> >even at the level of
> >society/culture/religion/tribe, then we will
> >have a dramatically destructive impact upon the
> >social and environmental commons. The
> >'happiness' ethical standard is thus
> >unacceptable. We should be subscribing to
> >another kind of ethical consideration, our
> >ethical obligation to protect and prevent harm
> >to universal interests that transcend the
> >ignorant and short sighted notions of nationhood
> >or sovereignty that perpetuate every global
> >decision.
> >
> >So why is this definition of ethics important to
> >this conversation? Ethics are not about whether
> >something is good or bad or right or wrong, it
> >is about a broader consideration of the
> >collective global good. My role as an architect
> >and educator is ever-changing, but particularly
> >in light of the economic and environmental
> >plundering over the last one hundred years, i
> >find myself often in the position where i do
> >have a direct agency upon the kind of buildings,
> >the kind of materials, the rates of numeration,
> >and the levels of environmental care and impact
> >that are applied within design projects under my
> >influence. I have an ethical obligation to say
> >no to clients whom are only interested in making
> >money in pursuit of their own sense of
> >'happiness', at a cost to everyone and
> >everything around them that we cannot afford to
> >accept. I am no lefty tree-hugger; far, far from
> >it. But i believe that i not only have the right
> >to develop an alternative ethical position to
> >that of the current system that allows this
> >highest-bidder principle to continue, i also
> >have an ethical responsibility to do so: as do
> >each one of you. I live my life according to
> >Ghandi's inspiring and empowering mantra; "be
> >the change you want to see in the world."
> >
> >I subscribe to Ken's assertion that we need to
> >delve deeper into the actual systems that
> >support the execution of an individual or
> >organisation's ethical principles if we are to
> >understand the consequence of a given ethical
> >position; especially if we are to then propose
> >our own alternative ethics. Ethics are only
> >'normative' within the system that supports
> >them. The University system for example promotes
> >a set of ethical principles that directly affect
> >how students are treated within that system,
> >although the ethical principles are often
> >actually at direct odds with that of the
> >students? Similarly, the government, or any
> >system that defends a sovereignty-based
> >territorial claim to its peoples and resources,
> >does so without consideration for anyone or
> >anything outside of that system. Tim is wrong to
> >suggest that the 'market' is the agent that
> >effects demand alone. This is not a dig at Tim,
> >but I am really tired of listening to
> >politicians and corporate CEO's justifying their
> >lack of ethical consideration to an 'other' by
> >hiding behind the faceless and unaccountable
> >'market'. We have a responsibility to offer
> >alternatives, to educate not only our students,
> >but more importantly our clients as to what is,
> >and should be, ethically appropriate design
> >decision making.
> >
> >Lets not let this conversation centre around
> >self-perpetuating cycles of decision and outcome
> >that deny the agency of a sound, globally
> >responsible, ethical principle.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >: : c h r i s b r i s b I n : :
> >B. Des. Studies, B. Architecture [ hon I ]
> >
> >
> >Lecturer in Architecture
> >PhD Candidate
> >Member of the ATCH Research Centre
> >[ architecture/theory/criticism/history ]
> >http://www.architect.uq.edu.au/atch/
> >
> >http://web.mac.com/christopherbrisbin/
> >
> >
> >[ postal ]
> >School of Design
> >Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
> >Queensland University of Technology
> >2 George Street, Brisbane 4000
> >[GPO Box 2434]
> >CRICOS No. 00213J
> >
> >[ e ] [log in to unmask]
> >[ p ] +61 7 3138 2903
>