First Things First
1964 manifesto by Ken Garland. Celebration of designers, and a sigh at the exploitation of creative talent in a capitalist society. Says its unethical to waste talent for pointless things for the benefit of capitalist people.
First Things First 2000
Re-released by adbusters magazine, which is an anti-capitalist magazine. They republished and revised the manifesto, and the tone changes to not just be a cry about wasting talent and doing something for a social cause, it gets more venomous and targets advertising.
The differences are really important between the two, and in the second one:
They pick out advertising to be the worst thing
Accusing designers of being part of a system that creates meaningless products so people buy things they don't need
Says that designers are uncomfortable with this and don't want to be a part of it anymore
Saying by producing any work which is consumerist is really bad and unethical as it is ruining the world, and should be opposing capitalism
Should use visual skills to say how bad consumerism is
In the second manifesto really famous and rich designers signed it, and it's really easy to turn their nose down at people 'with no ethics' because they don't have money or buying a house to worry about, as a lot of designers don't have the luxury of choosing who they work for and need money to live in the world
Victor Papanek
A really interesting writer, who although isn't an academic write a lot of books
'Most things are designed not for the needs of the people but for the needs of manufacturers to sell to people' (Papanek, 1983:46)
He sees a bigger purpose for creative people, and wants them to use their skills for more important things in the world.
He designed a radio receiver for third world countries, made out of things you can find in third world country streets like a tin can and cow dung. It is 9 cents to make, and is made not for profit and for the greater good, and is therefore ethical.
How do we determine what is good?
Subjective Relativism
- There are no universal moreal norms of right and wrong
- All persons decide right and wrong for themselves
People just say 'I think it's alright, so I'll just do it' and no one can tell them otherwise
Cultural Relativism
- The ethical theorry that whats right or wrong depends on place and/or time
Figure out what context, culture etc you're in and decide whats good/bad based on that.
Divine Command Theory
- Good actions are aligned with the will of God
- Bad actions are contrary to the will of God
- The holy book will help make decisions
Based on Dogma, based on given a set of rules and following them, isn't based on reason
Kantianism
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) a german philosopher
Peoples wills should be based on moral views
Therefore it's important that our actions are based on appropriate moral rules
We sit back and rationalise and think things through.
He was one of the first to try and formulate how to make decisions.
Created a set of rules to help determine whats right called Categorical Imperatives
Two formulations of the categorical imperative
Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time universalise
- If you act on a moral rule that would cause problems if everyone followed it, then your actions are not moral. It isn't out of emotion, it is out of logic. If you can justify that if everyone followed your suit and wouldn't cause problems, it would be ethical
- For example, if someone said I will never give to charity, and everyone followed suit, there would be no concept of charity and this is needed, therefore it would be unethical to say this.
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end
- You should not use, lie to or deceive other people, and if you use other people for your own benefit that is not moral.
- It can be argued that the second manifesto is unethical based on this second imperative
Utilitarianism
Principles of Utility
- An action is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties
- An action is wrong to the extent that it decreases the total happiness of the affected people
- Happiness may have many definitions such as: advantage, benefit, good or pleasure
Rules are based on the Principle of Utility
- A rule is right to the extent that it increases the total happiness of the affected parties
- The Greatest Happiness Principle is applied to the moral rules
Similar to Kantianism - both pertain to rules
This is flawed, as sometimes you can do a good deed but the consequences are bad, so it's not a perfect way of forming ethical views.
Social Contract Theory
- Thomas Hobbes (1603-1679) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
- An agreement between individual held together by common interest
- Avoids society degenerating into the state of nature or the war of all against all
- Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that other will follow those rules as well
If everyone did whatever they want, what you are left with is something akin to the state of nature, where everyone is competing or screwing each other, and in society you need something like a social contract where we all agree for the common good we have laws and regulations, and some things that are prohibited to do for the stability of the world. To be ethical is to do something for the common good, rather than individual gain.
Criteria for a workable ethical theory?
- Moral decisions and rules
- Based on logical reasoning
- Come from facts and commonly held or shared values
- Culturally neutral
- Treat people equallity
Statistics
The assets of the worlds top three billionaires are greater than those of the poorest 600 million on the planet
More than a third of the worlds population live on less than two dollars a day
1.2 billion live on less than one dollar a day
Per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa = $490
Per capita subsidy for European cows = $913
Leave your comment