Definitions are hard. Let’s try and write one for “ethical design”…

A phone showing a dictionary definition of the word “design” | Image credit: Edho Pratama on Unsplash

Ethical design is incredibly important. The consequences of ill-considered design can be frustrating, degrading, heartbreaking, or even life-threatening. Over the coming months I’ll be talking about more about why ethical design is important. But before that, I wanted to share some thoughts on what “ethical design” even means, and why defining terms like this is not at all straightforward…

I’m not keen on subscribing to fixed definitions for complex concepts. For some terms, you can open up a dictionary and see a short description. You can then feel pretty comfortable that you and others have a shared understanding of that word.

For other terms, its nowhere near that simple. Nor should it be. Complex concepts evolve over time through discussion and debate. By their very nature, they don’t have one shared definition that everyone can subscribe to. We engage in an ongoing dialectic, in order to move towards mutual agreement about our shared frame of reference.

When addressing these complex topics, it’s important that we don’t jump into the discussion assuming that everyone understands the terminology in exactly the same way we do. I’ve seen this in our team when trying to come up with shared definitions for “accessibility” and “inclusive design”. You would hope it would be as simple as googling a definition. Alas, no. Through our discussions, we found that a lot of the existing definitions lack nuance or clarity. As we tried to distil these terms down into something simple, we found we were losing some of the context. It’s tricky.

But definitions are useful. I’m not suggesting we do away with them. I attended a brilliant seminar run by Creative Reaction Lab where they started out by doing an activity they called “language setting”. They introduced a complex term, and worked together with all the participants to move towards a shared understanding. For me this was incredibly useful. It meant the trainer didn’t just jump into the content assuming that we all understood exactly the same thing by complex terms like “white supremacy” or “design thinking”. Instead, we each discussed a range of definitions, calling out where they worked, and where they missed the mark. As a group we moved towards a shared understanding of where others were coming from, and learned a lot from the insights of others.

Very often trainers start a talk with a definition of the key subject matter. But this approach can embed a power dynamic from the outset. “I, as expert, am imparting this knowledge to you, and there is no opportunity for negotiation”. Others in the room, who might have different experiences of the world, might disagree with the way the topic has been framed. But often, they are not given the opportunity to debate. The way we set the frame then has repercussions on the rest of the narrative and how we engage in the conversation. We assume that “experts” — who may come from a particular academic field, or followed a certain professional path — have more right to frame the narrative than someone with many years of lived experience. The context and perspective of living experts matters. But often they are not heard, or given a platform. Those traditionally considered experts certainly have a right to an opinion, but it should be with a view to understanding and accommodating the views of those with lived experience. Neither of these parties are necessarily objectively “correct”. Negotiation and discussion helps lead us to a more nuanced view that acknowledges expertise whilst also being sensitive to the realities of people’s lived experience.

So, in the interests of language setting, I wanted to lay out some of my thoughts on how we could define “ethical design”. This is not definitive. I see this as being part of an ongoing conversation with other practitioners and enthusiasts who are interested in design ethics.

Perhaps you have a different view on how we should be defining this complex topic. I encourage you to take a critical look at the definition I’ve landed on and think about:

• What resonates for you? What is working about this definition?
• Where does the definition fall short of the mark, miss nuance, or lack clarity?

What does it mean for something to be “Ethical”?

Before we even get to defining the term “ethical design”, it’s worth pausing for a moment on each of it’s constituent parts. Ethical and design are both already highly complex terms with rich histories. Your definition of these words might differ depending on which schools of thought you adhere to, your political background, your cultural context, or your philosophical beliefs.

I’m not going to resolve this in a few paragraphs, given that you can study entire postgraduate level degrees on the nature of ethics! Instead we’ll look at a couple of key ideas.

1. The dictionary definition
   “Ethical means relating to beliefs about right and wrong.” — Collins dictionary
   The dictionary definition implies that there is no shared, universal definition about what is, or is not, “ethical”. This is because everybody has a different conception of right and wrong. An act may be considered “ethical” if it aligns with your own values (whatever they may be). To understand whether you think something is ethical, it follows that you need to know what your own values are. Our values, and understandings of right and wrong, are informed by socialisation and upbringing, identity, education, experiences, religion and many other factors.
2. “Ethical” is not the same as “legal”
   Whilst law and ethics are related, laws are values that are encoded into a systematic body of rules. Laws may be binding upon people based on the society they live in. But ethics are not binding and are individual to each of us (even if they are highly influenced by societal norms). Law often lags behind ethical norms — think about the transatlantic slave trade which was both fully legal and entirely unethical. Society’s perception of whether or not something is ethical often shifts a long time before this is then formally encoded into a legal system. For example, gay marriage is still illegal in many countries, despite many individuals agreeing that it is not only ethical but a fundamental human right. We can’t necessarily rely on the law to enforce ethical standards, because there are loopholes and implementation gaps.
3. Even philosophers of ethics don’t agree
   There is also divergence in opinion amongst philosophical schools of thought. Some of these ideas and perspectives go back thousands of years. Duty-based (or deontological ethics) asserts that motives matter more than outcomes. So if your intent was good, you behaved ethically, regardless of the outcome. Results-based (or consequentialist) ethics evaluates actions based on their outcome. If the outcome produces the greatest good for the highest number of people, it is deemed ethical.

My point here is that there is no universally recognised definition of “ethical”. In fact some definitions are openly at odds with one another (see point 3 above). Our understanding of “ethics” is highly subjective, individual, and culturally contingent.

Some thoughts on defining “Design”

How do we define “design”? Again, there is a lot of complexity embedded within one small word. Our understanding of “design” has evolved over time. Also, there are many different kinds of design, including: architectural; industrial; fashion; engineering; software; UX; service; graphic and many more. Each of these areas will have their specific understanding of what design is and isn’t.

IBM’s definition of design is: “The intent behind an outcome.” This view links back to deontological ethics, focusing on the intent but not what is actually produced.

Creative Reaction Lab takes this further to include: “[Design is…] the intent and unintentional impact behind an outcome.” They emphasise that whatever happens as a result of your design is a part of that design, whether that impact is intentional or not. Their view is that we, as designers, are responsible for the outcome of our designs.

There is also an element of process. Design is a verb as well as a noun. It is not just a tangible output, like an architectural blueprint, it’s also all the work we did to get to that point. So we could define design as:

“The intent, and unintentional impact behind an outcome, and the process taken to reach that outcome.”

There are also inherent power dynamics baked into the design process. We as designers and producers have power by virtue of the fact that what we choose to design then becomes a thing — or an outcome — in the world. This outcome then impacts other people. So I wanted to also leave you with this definition of design to think about:

“Design is the process by which the politics of one world become the constraints of another.” Fred Turner, Professor at Stanford and former journalist.

Working definition for “Ethical design”

Bearing in mind how complicated it was to begin to define “ethical”, and to define “design”, there is definitely no easy or clear-cut definition for “ethical design”. I’d like to offer this suggestion as a starting point for a working definition:

Design ethics is the recognition that we — as designers — are responsible for what we put out into the world. Ethical design is made up of:

What you do: What is the problem you are designing for? Is it harmful? Does it have the potential to be harmful?

How you do it: What processes are you following? Are they inclusive? Do they reflect your values?

Who is doing it: Who is in the room? Are a diverse range of voices represented? Are people equal partners in the process? Who is impacted by what you create?

Ethical design considers outcome as well as intent. It’s not enough that there is good intention behind the design process. If the outcome is unintentionally harmful, then it is not ethical design.

What are your thoughts?

This is evolving. As our understanding of the field deepens, and more people share their views, definitions will shift.

So I’d love to hear from you. Going back to my questions at the beginning:

• What resonates for you? What is working about this definition?
• Where does the definition fall short of the mark, miss nuance, or lack clarity?

Share your thoughts! If you are interested in design ethics, I would love to hear from you. Find me on LinkedIn.

— — —

Thanks to Rob Coop for his useful and challenging insights on the first draft of this article.