Hi Terence and List,
Good questions. I am tempted to say design in the 'ethics for/in design' pertains to 'all of the above'(!). How else can it be for ethics? 
But if I am to aim more modestly, then I say, by 'design' for both cases of (1) ethics for design and (2) ethics in design, 'design' ought to imply the specific, field-centric activity and practice of design. In other words, in my own field, (1) and (2) ought to be exactly, 'ethics for (architectural) design' and 'ethics in (architectural) design'. [fill in within the bracket any other specified field of design, i.e., industrial, fashion, graphic, urban, policy, etc] 
You may ask, 'why should one select the activity and practice above other definitions'? At least for me, I see this definition as offering the greatest practical dividend: because the definition of design is specified, it is therefore possible to locate and apply theories found in moral philosophy into the activity of (architectural) design for (1), and for (2), it is also possible to begin a fruitful conversation about the role and purpose of ethics in (architectural) education and practice. In my mind at least, I see peers in industrial design, graphic design, interaction design and other fields of design doing the same thing concurrently. Over time, it may be possible to build up sufficient case studies and ideas for an inter-field design ethics dialogue. This dialogue can then be bootstrapped to (3) [or at least begin to approach it], which is the domain-general sense of 'design' encapsulated by the ethics of design. 
Of course the biggest pitfall of my imagined approach is that I am assuming a great dialogue with many fields of design supported by ample cases and data can amount automatically to a clear grand work of axioms or systems as the ethics of design. I am guilty as charged. But I am willing to take a stab at this--at least both commitment and feasibility are present in this approach. 
On your second question on enforcement, I am reminded of the Kantian question of 'what ought I do?'. This is the quintessential question of ethics, and it is asked afresh at every action juncture or simply, everyday. Legitimation, laws, justice systems and force and any other entrenched institutions are simply incapable of keeping up with this challenge of ethics. These possibilities, I think, are nothing but contingent inventions that attempt to reduce our uncertainties during ethical challenges. So to answer your question in the most straightforward manner, I don't think we can enforce ethics. We may try to with our codes of [professional] conduct in our respective fields of design but these are but ethos--partially deontological but mostly consequentialist and contractualist protocols that attempt to convert thorny problems into clear action directives. In my opinion, they can reinforce ethical behavior but they cannot effectively enforce ethical behavior nor can they genuinely encourage ethical behavior. To encourage ethical thinking and acting, we will have to go back to the original Kantian question. Asking the Kantian question will take acculturation, conditioning, willingness, a community that asks the same question, and a hosts of other conditionals including moral courage for the beginning of ethics. 

Jeff



> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: ethics for designers?
> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 23:23:20 +0800
> 
> Hi Jeffrey,
> Thanks for your post.
> Wondering what you mean by 'design? The activity, the plan, the thing
> itself, something else?
>  In your 'for', 'in' and 'of' design I was wondering which 'design' you were
> referring to?
>  A second wondering is how you feel you would enforce ethical behaviour by
> designers?
> The simplest and most obvious approach is to use legitimation, laws, justice
> systems  and force - and this combination is the factor shaping professional
> ethical codes of practice of the professional fields of designers. 
> Or do you see an alternative?
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jeffrey
> chan
> Sent: Monday, 8 November 2010 10:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ethics for designers?
> 
> Dear Toon and Derek,
> It is true that limited literature exist on design ethics. Derek's
> suggestion of first defining, observing and understanding what we mean by
> ethical actions in that specific design practice is very valuable. However,
> I disagree with Derek's statement that there is "nothing unique about
> "design" that can, or should, separate it from the wider discussions of
> ethics itself." More on that later. 
> To start, in German, it is possible to distinguish between sittlichkeit and
> moralitat (native German speakers, please correct me). The former pertains
> to a shared ethos or custom of practice, while the latter entails the moral
> laws that go beyond the subjective customs. Depending on where you stand,
> this distinction may or may not be agreeable to you. But I think this is a
> useful distinction because while there are many different design practices
> and customs, many (or most of them that I can think of) share Simon's
> definition of design. Without this distinction, we would only have
> incommensurable sittlichkeit to contend with in design tantamount to a
> postmodern argument of incommensurability--something that I am not fully
> convinced. 
> From here it is possible to say that in design ethics we can speak of three
> different sub-categories: (1) ethics for design; (2) ethics in design; and
> lastly, ethics of design. (1) is where we take Derek's case, and where we go
> into moral philosophy in order to locate frameworks and cases which we can
> apply for design problems and issues. For example, we may want to look up
> frameworks of consequentialism, or Kantian deontology--Weber's ethic of
> responsibility and ethic of conviction respectively--or we may even try
> Virtue Ethics to delineate the desirable qualities of being a designer. Lots
> of work await in this area. On the other hand, (2) is a meta-level operation
> directed at clarifying and proposing the various position, purpose and role
> of ethics in design. For example, how do we integrate ethics into design
> practice and education? How can ethical knowledge and reasoning clarify,
> evaluate and create new choices for design decision-making? And so on.
> Finally, (3) ought to be the crowing goal of design ethics: an ethic of
> design (design in the most domain-general sense). On (3), I don't think we
> have very much literature, or work to date. But what we do have is both (1)
> and (2), which are ground-clearing, clarifying and consolidating work that
> can be done in order that our generation (or more likely future generations)
> can approach and formulate (3). 
> This is where I formulate my constructive disagreement with Derek: there is
> indeed something unique about design and by this, demands an ethic of
> design. For my argument, I borrow from Jonas's writings on the ethics of the
> technological age--that designers are now capable of creating artifacts and
> processes that have consequences which extend far into the future. The
> reality of this reach by design is beyond what traditional ethics--of the
> face to face kind overwhelmingly structured on concern of the human species
> at the expense of non-human species and the environment--are unable to help
> us. Horst Rittel, who read Jonas well, took a similar line of thinking as
> well. Without building my argument on an appeal to authority, one can easily
> discern the kind of 'designs' out there in the present that fit this
> argument: the CERN collider, the various GMOs and chimeras, and to some
> extent Tim Brown's famous Oral-B toothbrush that washed up on a sandy beach
> literally unchanged after many years to realize that there is something
> about the growing power of design that extends beyond our mortal frame of
> mind. 
> Perhaps this is also why we find it so hard to formulate an ethical approach
> to design beyond what we already have as the code of practices for
> architects, designers, planners, engineers, policy makers and Wall Street
> financiers who have managed to destroy a good part of the world (in no
> particular order!). This is because according to Jonas, none of the
> traditional ethical frameworks is applicable in this context of far-reaching
> consequences. Jonas has his own answer, though I remain unconvinced by its
> totalitarian undertones in this world still suffering from this exact regime
> in its many forms. 
> To add to the list of literature circulating around on design ethics, I have
> my own list to add. Here are a few that I can think of (in an extremely
> non-rigorous form after a very long day):1. Tony Fry's Design Futuring book;
> 2. Jean-Pierre Protzen's article on the pathology of design in the Universe
> of Design; (3) Tom Russ's book on design ethics and sustainability; (4)
> Warwick Fox's General Theory book and Architecture Ethics essay in a reader
> for ethics of technology; (5) Bauman's surprisingly good chapter in
> Postmodern Ethics; (6) Jonas's Imperative of Responsibility book; (7)
> Papanek's classic; (8) Till's funny 'Architecture Depends' book--a concise
> but short chapter on ethics. For ID, Maldonaldo is a good place to start,
> though not many would agree with his lefty ethics today. Nonetheless, I
> think he is a thoughtful thinker and commenter in design ethics. 
> Good luck, and as Derek said, a very important topic that should demand the
> attention of any attentive scholar and student today. Especially today. 
> 
> Jeffrey ChanAssistant Professor of ArchitectureNational University of
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:19:08 +0100
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ehtics for designers?
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > 
> > Dear, Toon. 
> > 
> > I just gave a lecture on Design Ethics for matter of International Peace
> and Security at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. It's available (with
> some typos) on UNIDIR's website
> (http://www.unidir.org/bdd/unidir-views-fiche.php?ref_uv=27)
> > 
> > There is a very limited literature on design and ethics, and I would
> recommend following the literature in ethics itself and only then looping
> back to matters of design practice. Ultimately, one acts ethically in a
> practice. And so knowing what we mean by ethical action generally is the
> first step. The second is attending to specific practices that designers
> engage in so they can be subjected to ethical analysis. But the basis of
> ethical analysis will not be found in "design ethics" because there is
> nothing unique about "design" that can, or should, separate it from wider
> discussions of ethics itself.
> > 
> > Good luck. Very, very important topic you are pursuing.
> > 
> > Derek Miller
> > _______________
> > Derek B. Miller, Ph.D.
> > -Senior Fellow
> > United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
> > -Associate Scholar
> > Center for Local Strategies Research, University of Washington
> > Norwegian telephone: +47 450 393 66
> > U.S. voicemail: +1 617 440 4409 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:26 AM, toon wrote:
> > 
> > > hi all,
> > > 
> > > As a product design student in my third year I am beginning
> > > to get more and more interested in the ethics of designers.
> > > What are our moral (unwritten) codes. Or is there such a
> > > thing all together?
> > > 
> > > I think we have to take responsibility for our actions. And
> > > that our actions should involve making the world a
> > > better place.
> > > 
> > > If we look at the following example:
> > > "Robert Moses, the master builder of roads, parks, bridges,
> > > and other public works of the 1920s to the 1970s in New
> > > York, built his overpasses according to specifications that
> > > would discourage the presence of buses on his parkways."
> > > from "Do Artifacts Have Politicis" Langdon Winner 1986.
> > > 
> > > Could we then say that Robert Moses is not a designer as
> > > defined bij Herbert Simon? He, afterall, did not design for
> > > a better world, but for more segregation.
> > > 
> > > What are your thoughts? Does anyone have some intersting
> > > readings I could consult?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your time
> > > toon
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > "The act of invention and creation is
> > > pleasurable."
> > >                        Anthony Leyland 11:09
>  		 	   		  
> 
>