Hi dear colleagues,

Every design is responsible! The big question is to whom. If it to the
designer himself/herself,  you will probably label it "irresponsible." If
it is to the paying client, activists of "political correctness" will call
it "irresponsible."  So you see that we enter in the field of politics and
ideology. It is not about ethics. It is about politics. And when designers
want to decide the question themselves, they enter in the way of
politicians. By making this decision designers practically empower
themselves and infringe on the power of politicians. The moment designers
start deciding what is right and what is wrong for society, they become
ideologists and politicians. However, self-elected. As a designer I like
the political activism of the founders of modern movement in environmental
design. As a sociologist, I have to confess that this position has a lot of
week points. When technocrats (or consultants if you like) go beyond
consulting, in the area of policy making, there is considerable conflict of
interest and abuse of consulting privileges.

I am also impressed by the nature of topics we discuss. We have hardly
discussed an esoteric design topic. We have discussed topics in philosophy
of science, ethics, politics and so on. Are we specialists in these areas?
Several decades ago somebody (who was not conservative, by the way) had
said: War is too complex issue to leave it to generals only.
Do you think that design is less complex? Or you believe that designers are
smarter than generals? By the way, I do. However, let's see the reality in
a different way and make responsible decisions about our roles in the
social game.

Regards,

Lubomir


At 01:08 PM 4/23/2001 +0200, Brynjulf Tellefsen wrote:
>Dear Rosan, David and All,
>
>A rather interesting dialogue is happening between Rosan and David on
>morals and ethics. Rosan wrote:
>
>1 Now, David, are you saying that the design point of view is a moral
>position?
>And design is a moral act?
>
>2 Incidentally, I was reading an article by Alain Findeli in the current
>Design Issues Vol.17, No.1 2001 in which he asserted "There can be no
>responsible design without a responsible designer, ie. education should
>be directed to the development of an individualistic ethics".
>
>Your writing and Findeli's article make me ask where does moral come from?
>On which moral ground the moral ground itself is judged?
>
>To the first question David anwered an unqualified YES! I fully agree. Any
>act requires a motivation by the individual. The content of the motivation
>of the individual, factual or imagined, is what others judge somebody's
>morals on. Design is always for somebody, i.e. design is a social act.
>
>I also agree with David that it is meaningless to talk about ethics except
>in a social context. All the ethical theories are about relationships
>between people:
>
>Utilitarian ethics: The value of the outcome of an act/event on those
>affected is the moral focus. Typical ethical questions: Is it morally
>defensible if an act benefits millions greatly at the expense of a select
>few? Is it ethical for a firm to maximize the good of its constituencies at
>the expense of third parties? (typical question in environmental issues).
>
>Deontological ethics: What duties do I have? Rights? These rights/duties
>exsist independently of utilitarian outcomes and rules of an incident.
>Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is the best known of deontological
>philosophies: "Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich
>wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde." And his humanity
>formula: "Handle so, dass du die Menchheit, sowohl in deiner Person, als in
>der Person eines jeden andern, jederzeit zugleich als Zweck,niemals bloss
>als Mittel brauchest." Typical rights: See the UN human rights declarations
>ratified by almost all countries in the world.
>
>Virtue ethics: Platon and Aristoteles are the early birds on this one,
>while Alasdair MacIntyre in "After Virtue" (1981) updates Aristoteles: "A
>virtue is an aquired human quality the possession and exercise of which
>tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices
>and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving such goods."
>In Business ethics typically virtues like understanding, honesty and
>integrity are sought TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY WORK. All religions are filled
>with virtues to be sought (ref. the ten commandments of the christian
>faith).
>
>In a sense Rosan is a little right. Even though morals are formed by,
>accepted by, and regulate societies (they vary between societies and over
>time - ethics are the philosophical/theoretical thinking we use to
>understand and evaluate morals), the morals of the society (ies) you are a
>part of are internalized and become a part of your individual personality.
>Socialization of the individual can actually be seen as the process of
>internalizing (psychologically speaking) the morals of society in the
>individual, so that society does not need to continuously monitor the acts
>of the individual to keep him/her on the right track. The individual does
>that to him/herself responding to internalized values. Now, if the quote of
>Rosan in part 2 had been "...to the development of an individually imbedded
>moral," I would not have had any problems accepting the sentence. However,
>"individualistic ethics" has no clear meaning to me. Does "individualistic"
>mean that the right moral is egoistic maximization regardless of
>consequences for others? Or does it mean that every individual should have
>his/her personal morals, that stand above whatever the rest of the society
>might believe to be the right moral?
>
>It makes me reflect once more on why it is "in" in modern management to
>employ value-based management methods. I guess one of the beliefs is that
>only when all menbers of the organization have the same measuring rod of
>right and wrong and good and bad, can you trust your fellow men and
>delegate authority to them. Maybe that is the thinking behind Findeli;
>"Don't trust a designer till (s)he has internalized the morals of the
>society (s)he is supposed to serve."
>
>I am interested in further debate.....
>
>Bryn
>
>
>Brynjulf Tellefsen
>Associate Professor
>Department of Knowledge Management
>Norwegian School of Management
>P. O. Box 580
>N-1302 Sandvika
>NORWAY
>
>Phone direct:  +47-6755 7191
>Via exchange:  +47-6755 7000
>Faximile:      +47-6755 7780
>Private phone/fax: +47-2214 9697
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]