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