pure conditions for communication
are almost impossible. For practical reasons it might be necessary
to have someone be represented by
someone else. Though hardly ideal,
if we are to develop a practical set
of conditions for designers and business people, we need to consider
this possibility. Given more time
here, we might begin to determine
behaviors and procedures for those
who are representing (speaking
for) others. As we form a group, we
need to decipher which individuals
or groups are affected, positively or
negatively, by the current situation.
Who speaks for these constituents?
Have we considered all the major
players (those who are significantly
affected)? Looking at the initial group,
we can ask if any constituency has
been overlooked. In this way, a more
nuanced and inclusive group would
be assembled to address the issues.
During this process of forming
the group, we would need to be
aware of our own biases that would
tend to yield an overly like-minded
group. (This is absolutely doable, but
beyond the scope of this article.) In
the process of gathering interested
parties, we should pay particular
attention to those who represent
special interests on competing sides,
and those who may be outside the
dominant (often corporate) culture
but who have clear reasons to be
engaged with the vetting process.
The work of the group. For practi-
cal reasons, the group would need
a parliamentarian to keep order
and ensure that all were heard.
The discussion might begin by hav-
ing each person “situate herself or
himself” for the group. Next, the
leader should ask, “What do we have
here?” reminding the group that,
for the time being, no actions were
being proposed. As each person
spoke, the others would need to
listen without preparing a rebuttal to
what was being said while someone
else was talking [ 4]. Rather, par-
ticipants would attempt to under-
stand another’s concern about the
situation under investigation, but
in a way very different from their
own. A willingness to not auto-
matically allow profit alone to drive
outcomes must be established.
require keeping notes to decipher
the nature of cases, the people at
the table, and the ways in which
the cases were resolved. In biomedical ethics, which often involve
life-and-death cases, professional
casuists conduct investigations and
rely upon comparisons with existing paradigms to understand what
a case is like. Since design doesn’t
yet have such case histories, a data-base would have to be developed
over time, using explicit criteria.
Wrapping discourse ethics into a
case-based method means that
design can begin to establish its own
history fairly efficiently. Most important, it would be inclusive and reflective. Although most contemporary
problems beg for an answer to the
question, “What should we do?” this
question positions us to jump into
action—to do rather than to reflect
before acting. In conclusion, even
though the speed of the electron that
governs our daily lives doesn’t seem
to be slowing down processes, whenever there appears to be an ethical
conundrum, let’s first change the
question to “What do we have here?”
and not forget to consider carefully,
“Who is the ‘we’ in our question?”
ENDNOTES:
1. Quote is from Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals.
2. These comments were part of O’Neill’s talk at
a New Hall College, Cambridge University, UK,
“Architecture and Its Ethical Dilemmas,” March 2004.
3. This situation is posed in M. Daisey’s “The Agony
and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” Berkeley Repertory
Theatre, Berkeley, CA, Jan.11-Feb. 27, 2011.
4. See Jacob Needleman, fora.tv, April 2007.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Leslie Becker, Ph.D. is a professor
and former director of the Division
of Design, California College of
the Arts, San Francisco and an
AIGA Fellow. In addition to teach-
ing for the past 40 years, she is
also a design practitioner. She is currently turning
her Ph.D. dissertation, on methods of ethics for
design, into a book.
March + April 2012
DOI:
10.1145/2090150.2090163
© 2012 ACM 1072-5220/12/03 $10.00