Ethics: the social physics of pursuing a good use

The essay works on the premise that design is a human activity. To discuss the ethics of design as a human activity by separating it from other human activities is, to my mind, an unhealthy approach. An ethics, again in my opinion, can be made specific to any one kind of activity only if it starts from, and carries with it all the way, a clear conception of what being human is about and what human activity entails when it interferes in the environment. There is a logically binding continuity between being a professional designer and being a human being with a place in society. If we lose that sense of continuity we lose our place: we lose ourselves as a place; a place where all relations between our body and the environment come together in an I. If we divide our professional persona from our private persona we end up with two I’s. There is a word for that, it is called schizophrenia. Aspects of schizophrenia may be unavoidable, but it is generally considered to be a difficult way of living life. As such it is the continuity of being that interests me even though we know, from experience, that a good designer does not necessarily have to be a good person, a good father, mother or a faithful friend. In fact the possibility of there being a discontinuity between these aspects of being, makes describing the manner of continuity that is necessary in being all the more of a challenge. My challenge is to ground out thinking about ethics and action on a pragmatic and existential footing using abstractions vague enough not to make a mockery of our very real ignorance about all sorts of issues to do with the functioning of the human body in the environment and precise enough to help us think about making decisions. I will not tell you how to act, but I will tell you how you might want to think about acting.