In the Intro of "The Ethical Architect", What do you think about the author's (Tom Spector) view that "Architects live and work today in a functioning but weakened profession that lacks a dominant design ethic"?
What about his noting of the need for a ..."clearly articulated concept of a moral mission"?
In Chapter One he condemns Bill's actions on the level of professional morality. What do you think about Bill's actions?
Can you think of examples of morals and ethics in conflict in the profession?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2. This is absolutely necessary. It is sometimes unclear what is best for society or the public based on the personal morals and ethics of the designer and what they are designing. A clear concept of ethics that each architect will practice could bring more faith back into the profession, something that is stated in the first point.
ReplyDelete3. Bill performed the work at the level required of him and worked hard to fix the issue out of his own moral obligation. Therefore, ethics were very apparent in his actions. It is just unfortunate that the most important thing he needs (licensure) broke any trust he may have had. But given his track record, his work should do the talking, not a test score.
4. Buildings built tall that hide views that once existed, buying up a dying but inhabited area to develop it, destruction of the natural (or even built) environment, etc.
I think in response to the introduction, Architects definitely are living and working in a world and profession that has lost it's touch with those basic ethics of design. Ultimately an architect needs to understand the basis for what he or she is doing and whether it is ethically right. As an architect and a professional, out of human nature, there can't help but be a desire to want to sometimes go against your better judgment. That being said though, if a "moral mission" was established there could be the hope for a change.
ReplyDeleteHis condemnation of Bill's actions I think is completely justified. Just as there is in any profession rules and regulations set forth for very good reasons usually, there is in architecture and design. As a practicing architect Bill should have clearly known the laws, regulations, and consequences of his work. Though the problem was found not to be his fault, it still shows a fault in his ethics of practicing design and architecture. He very well could have been the best designer to have ever lived but that does not hold him as an exception to the rules of the profession of architecture.
Examples of conflicts within the profession could be the design of a structure, building or not, that probably had a better design solution but due to the client and money was finished in a less suitable way. As Phil mentioned, the destruction of the natural environment that could have been avoided is always a growing topic in today's design world.
I believe that the criticism of Bill’s actions is necessary because if one is aloud to trounce the system then many will follow. Not only does this allow for subpar standards, it takes away from the intricacies of design. Architects must defend their positions as designers and make example of those who try to cheat the system. For example, a carpenter would not let an electrician frame a house, one He would be without a job, and two the house would not be framed to code. The same is true for architecture allowing a contractor to do an architects job creates the loss of a job and poorly crafted work.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the proffession is weakend in that there is still many moral issues that do not get addressed when designing or building. A moral mission would set a higher standard of design and help start addressing these issues.
ReplyDeleteBill definitely acted (professionaly) imoral by not meeting one of the criterias to practice, therefor puting mistrust in himself as a professional and in the practice of Architecture itself.
A moral issue that exists today is the lack of building affordable houseing with a good and humane design for homeless and lowerincome people
Maybe the profession is not lacking design ethic. Maybe the profession is behind in catching up with today’s changing ethics. Architects have probably designed in the same way as architects did decades ago. But while their ideas of ethic morality have not changed much, if any, the expectations put on them and the profession has.
ReplyDeleteArchitecture as a profession and the organizations that protect them should come up with an ethical code of conduct that covers today’s society’s expectations, trust, and need in the architecture they are inhabiting.
Granted, Bill was not legally able to practice architecture in the state of Georgia, he designed a building that worked and worked well. The faulty fake dormers were not his fault, but they did get him caught. It would have been in his best interest to get in contact with a local architect and collaborate with that architect in his designs so they could be stamped. He knew the game he was playing, so there cannot be much sympathy for him.
I feel that ethics and morals (in the traditional sense) may not be at the forefront of architectural practice today. However, there are individuals and movements that do practice with ethics/morals as a driving force. A couple of examples are Cameron Sinclair and the way he designs to enhance human life through philanthropy, as well as the green movement. Sustainability has not only become relevant, but also fashionable in today's architecture. And while some may question its direction, its intention was enhance the earth.
ReplyDeleteBill's actions, while perhaps not malicious, were inexcusable. As architects, we/they are intensely trained to the extent of mastering a craft. It would be blindly foolish of anyone to believe that the notion of right/wrong is extracted from our minds as a result of such training.
Taking shortcuts is not only a ethical/moral flaw in our profession, but i many others as well. Whether it's an architect not thoroughly inspecting drawings handled by his minions, or the superintendent on the job-site specifying a lower-grade product when the specs clearly note something else-- either of these can engender a situation like Bill's.
I would have to disagree with Tom in the aspect that today’s profession is weakened. The only weakening element right now is that of the economy, which with fingers crossed with soon be on the up and up. There is a great number of our peers that are both studying and within the field already that in my opinion raises the bar and really pushes the opportunity that our profession can move towards. I also believe that it would be near impossible to come up with a dominant design ethic for the profession, not only because each of us has different moral and ethical standards that he/she lives by, but also because our profession is continually growing into new fields.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the need for a clearly articulated concept of a moral mission would end up being an interesting theory, but I feel it could not be an encompassing concept but would have to be portrayed individually.
Bill’s actions were lawfully wrong and he was proved as such, however I have heard of this happening in numerous cases and I think that Bill probably had decided that if “everyone else is doing it, I can to,” because he definitely isn’t the only one doing it he’s just one that got caught.
I believe that one would be to show a bias judgment on a project, and intern looking out more for personal gain instead of the public’s wellbeing. Cookie-cutter housing, building obtrusive structures that would effect existing built spaces…
I agree. It’s even evident in the excitement about BIM resubmitting control to the architect. We want what we once held. We once held it because we asserted the necessity for it to be placed in our hands. Perhaps we now lack assertion…or maybe it’s just nobody believes our (unfounded) reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI think a clear moral placeholder is necessary. However, it should be up to the architect to define their philosophical values through dialogue, precedence, and implementation. Their values would then expound through their works.
Bill’s actions were neither altruistic nor reputable. His initial desire to knowingly go forth with the project sans state license was for fame, wealth, or both. He proceeded to fulfill his obligation to his morality as a professional and person by completing the design in a competent manner. Unfortunately, it was incorrectly implemented by someone outside of his direct control. His following through of the investigation was partially selfish again (not to say selfish is bad) because he wanted to clear his name. However, he should be condemned only to the degree that his lack of licensure allows. The fault of the improperly installed roof should be placed upon those who were inept in doing what they were paid to do.
Conflicts within the profession can arise when “morality” is placed on a scale measured against “profitability.” Oftentimes, one must be sacrificed in the name of the other. Unfortunately for our profession, many lean toward the latter.
While the architecture design ethic may be weakened, it still functions and is, therefore, still there. It's just much of what could have been new and revolutionary has been adopted and is understood as a basic part of the profession these days. So now we are dealing with only the higher level moral and ethical issues that usually constantly stay in the gray zone with opinions on either side. There might not be a dominant design ethich across the board but there are ethical practices that have become standards even for those who would be considered "unethical."
ReplyDeleteThe author says there is a need for a "clearly articulated concept of a moral mission." The architecture community would probably benefit from a moral mission across the board that they can all agree on and strive for, but the authors own admission that the system is currently functioning shows that we dont need this moral mission but rather that the architecture community would grow and beomes more respected with the addiction of one.
I think Bill was definiteley out of line and was not acting in a morally responsible way. It is usually safe to say that by breaking the law, one is also breaking a moral code of conduct. While Bill may have been qualified to do the job that doesnt mean he has the right too. If someone has the ability to be President that doesnt mean they get to be. They still have to be voted into office by the public. The ways in which we earn out right to practice make us respect the system and even less liklely to misbehave because we are not only relying on moral code anymore but also fear of punishment by our peers.
i beleive that there are many instances where people will play with the certain dimensions to make them look to the city like they might be ADA acceptable but in reality they might be a few inches or even less off. While this might not actually make a differende in the project and all the handicapped people might not even notice it; the fact remains the same that they broke the rules and even willingly lied about it, which is completely against morals and ethics.
I agree with the author’s view that the profession lacks a dominant design ethic, which has as a result weakened the profession as a whole. The creation of a core ethical code would not only strengthen the profession, but also bring architects together under a shared set of beliefs. The idea for a “clearly articulated concept of a moral mission” will help define and guide the profession. I think it is just as necessary as a dominant design ethic. Together these two concepts will play a huge role in reforming the profession.
ReplyDeleteI believe that what Bill did was wrong. Although his work was not at fault for the damage, he was not licensed. He may have taken responsibility for his work but his actions from the beginning were not ethically correct. There is a system that must be followed and the rules were set into place for good reason. He undermined the system and society’s safety through is actions.
I agree with Tom, because if we look around there are lots of ugly buildings old and new. I feel that sometimes an architects gets so cough up in the business aspect of the profession and is only thinking of bringing in more projects to the office and forgets how to design.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that all of the responsibility should fall on him. He was at fault for not mentioning that he was not a registered architect in that state, but after all he is an architect and he completed his job to the best of his knowledge and at the end it proven that the mistake was not on his drawings.
For instance when construction is about to start and they begin excavating into the ground and something is found it is not always reported because of the fear that construction will be stopped for historic preservation findings.
I think that the author is correct about the fact that our profession is weakening. However I don’t think that has anything to do with a “dominant design ethic”. I believe that because of the fact that we live in a ‘global’ world has created a situation that we have not face prior to today. I believe that we are facing a crisis of the proportion that architects first faced when trying to become a profession during the 19th century. For these early professionals ethics and morals were what allowed them to become a profession. For us it will be much more difficult than just writing out a list of moral requirements. In my opinion our profession is on the verge of being swallowed by engineering and other professions similar to it. I believe that this is because, as the author argues, that we have allowed these other jobs like interior design, and engineering to slowly take away our responsibilities. Now I do believe that this was inevitable because of the growing complexities of the built environment, but we have made ourselves vulnerable by doing so, and frankly it’s too late to turn back. Now we must look forward. To exactly where, I have no idea.
ReplyDelete