Ethics and the Built Environment

Warwick Fox, Warwick Fox

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781134555482
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filosofía
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría filosóficas

Much has been written in recent years on environmental ethics relating to the more general 'natural' environment but little specifically written about ethics of the built environment. Ethics and the Built Environment responds to this need and offers a debate on the ethical dimension of building in all its forms from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and approaches.
This book should be of interest to architects, students of building and building design, environmentalists, politicians and general readers with an interest in ethics.

1

INTRODUCTION

Ethics and the built environment

Warwick Fox

Major theoretical and practical developments dating back variously over the last century, and in some cases longer, have contributed to a revolution in ethics in the last two to three decades. On the theoretical side, I have in mind developments as significant as those of post-Big Bang physics, post-Darwinian evolutionary biology and ecology, the emerging cognitive sciences and the emerging study of complex adaptive systems – in short, the sciences of matter, life, mind and complexity-in- general. These sciences have collectively fuelled the development of a naturalistic, evolutionary understanding of the universe and all that it contains, which, in turn, has stimulated (at least for many) a fundamental rethinking of humanity’s place in the larger scheme of things. On the practical side, the emerging anthropogenic (i.e. humanly caused) ecological crisis has been leading us to question the ways in which we dwell upon the Earth. Taken together, these major theoretical and practical challenges to our previous self-understandings and ways of living have led, just since the 1970s, to the development of an emerging field of philosophy known as ‘environmental philosophy’ or, more particularly, ‘environmental ethics’.

As its name suggests, environmental ethics is, or at least ought to be, concerned with examining any and all ethical questions that arise with respect to a moral agent’s interactions with any and all aspects of the world around her or him. This includes other humans, since environmental ethics typically begins with an analysis of the reasons why we believe humans to be deserving of moral consideration and why we have, until quite recently, denied such consideration to the non-human world. Thus, if its full implications are grasped, environmental ethics represents the most general form of ethics we have. Far from being a minor, ‘applied ethics’ offshoot of the field of enquiry hitherto known simply as ethics , environmental ethics actually represents a vast enlargement of that field of enquiry. This is because, as just implied, the field of ethics to date has been profoundly human-centred in its range of concerns and therefore effectively constitutes a subset – albeit an astonishingly elaborated subset – of the range of concerns addressed by environmental ethics (see, for example, Fox 1995 and 1996; Zimmerman 1998). There is therefore a strong case for referring to environmental ethics as ‘general ethics’ and referring to traditional human-centred ethics as ‘anthropocentric ethics’, that is, as that subset of general ethics that deals with human-centred ethical concerns.

However, just as traditional, anthropocentrically focused forms of ethics have exhibited a major blind spot in their theorising with respect to the non-human world, so the development of environmental ethics has thus far exhibited a major blind spot of its own–and, to that extent, not fully realised its own implications. This ‘blind spot’ flows from the following basic fact: the world around us–what we call ‘the environment’–consists of both spontaneously occurring and humanly constructed environments. For convenience, we label these the ‘natural environment’ and the ‘built environment’, and this natural/built environment distinction is perhaps the most obvious division that we can make in the day-to-day world in which we live. When you look out of your window, you may see, on the one hand, trees, the sky and, perhaps, some birds; on the other hand, houses, roads and cars. These things are all mixed together in your field of view, but some of them belong to the spontaneously self-organising natural world and some of them belong to the intentionally organised built environment (including cars and other artefacts on the broad understanding we are employing here, since cars are part of the intentionally organised, built – or constructed – environment even though they are not ‘buildings’). In addition there are many, many examples of what we might call ‘mixed’ environments all around us. These are becoming increasingly common as humans intentionally engineer and put to use the spontaneous self-organising processes of the natural world – from the back garden to the brave new world of genetic modification.

Yet, despite the fact that the world around us–‘the environment’–consists of both natural and built environments (and their various admixtures), environmental ethics, as a formal field of enquiry, has been overwhelmingly focused upon the spontaneously self-organising, ‘natural’ environment, as opposed to the humanly created, or intentionally organised, built environment. It seems, then, that environmental ethics has not yet truly earned the name that it presently goes under, let alone the name general ethics , which would be an even better way of describing the field if its full implications were realised.

On the one hand, this bias towards concerns with the natural environment is completely understandable: environmental ethicists have wanted to escape the almost exclusively anthropocentric focus that has pervaded traditional ethical approaches and so have deliberately directed their attentions to the non-human world in order to redress this imbalance. On the other hand, however, this bias is decidedly odd for at least two reasons. First, the development of any truly comprehensive environmental ethics (which would then amount to a general ethics) obviously demands the development of an ethic which is broad enough to address ethical questions that arise in all manner of environments – natural, built and mixed. Second, whereas humans evolved in natural, or spontaneously self-organising environments, we now increasingly live in built, or intentionally organised environments, and these built environments draw mightily upon the free ‘goods and services’ provided by the spontaneously self-organising realm of Nature (see Chapter 2, by Girardet, ‘Greening Urban Society’). In consequence, it should be obvious that how we build these environments and how we live in them is a question of prime importance, not only for the preservation and flourishing of humans themselves, but also for the preservation and flourishing of the whole non-human realm of Nature. The fate of the ‘green bits’ of the planet is now inextricably bound up with – indeed, effectively at the mercy of – the future of the ‘brown bits’.

However, as significant as these theoretical and practical issues are, no field of enquiry presently exists that is clearly and explicitly devoted to the subject of what we would call the ethics of the built environment or (perhaps more simply, and with more of an emphasis on process rather than outcome) the ethics of building. That said, it is true that some philosophers have occasionally attempted explicitly to address ethical issues associated with the built environment, and it is also true that some commentators coming more from a design and architecture background have also occasionally attempted explicitly to address ethical issues in this area. We can point to various contributions that might come to be viewed as ‘early developments’ in the field of the ethics of the built environment, once this field gets going as a formally recognised field of enquiry. For example, the art historian David Watkin’s Morality and Architecture (1977) (critically discussed by Nigel Taylor in this volume); the philosopher Dale Jamieson’s paper on ‘The City Around Us’ (1984) (thanks to Andrew Light for drawing this paper to my attention); the philosopher Avner De-Shalit’s paper ‘Urban Preservation and the Judgement of Solomon’ (1994) (thanks to Doris Schroeder for drawing this paper to my attention); the designer Victor Papanek’s The Green Imperative: Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture (1995); the Heideggerean-influenced philosopher Karsten Harries’ The Ethical Function of Architecture (1997) (critically discussed by Saul Fisher in this volume); the philosopher Alastair Gunn’s paper ‘Rethinking Communities: Environmental Ethics in an Urbanized World’ (1998); and, as this book is going to press, the philosopher Roger King’s paper ‘Environmental Ethics and the Built Environment’ (2000). On the whole, however, contributions that attempt explicitly to address ethical issues associated with the built environment have thus far been few and far between, whether they have come at this topic from the philosophical side or the design and architecture side. This point is reinforced by most, if not all of the philosophical contributions in the preceding list (as it is by a number of the contributors to this volume). For example, Jamieson began his 1984 paper by saying:

It may seem odd to many people that a book devoted to environmental ethics includes an essay on the city. We often speak of the environment as if it is everywhere except where we live (italics added).

(Jamieson 1984: 38)

Fourteen years later, Gunn began his paper along similar lines:

Unfortunately, the central concerns of environmental ethics have been and largely continue to be heavily slanted towards animals, plants, endangered species, wilderness, and traditional cultures and not toward the problems of life in industrialized, urbanized society where most people now live.

(Gunn 1998: 34)

In short, the discussion of the built environment was unusual in environmental ethics then (Jamieson 1984) and still remains unusual (Gunn 1998). King (2000:115) rightly sees this ‘lack of attention’ (to the built environment) as ‘a lost opportunity for environmental ethics.’

The aim of this volume, then, is to contribute towards the accumulation of a critical mass of ideas and questions that will enable the discussion of the ethics of the built environment (or the ethics of building ) to take off as a field of enquiry in its own right. This volume therefore brings together, on the one hand, philosophers (especially ethicists) with an interest in architecture, planning and building and, on the other hand, philosophically oriented architects, planners and other analysts of the built environment. The aim is to create an informed interdisciplinary forum in which to:

• 1. widen and deepen the debate on the ethical dimensions of building in all its forms from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and approaches;
• 2. contribute significantly towards establishing an agenda for the future development of these issues; and
• 3. propose some tentative solutions to the kinds of questions that arise when we contemplate the ethics of building.

To this end, excluding the introduction and the conclusion, the chapters that constitute this volume have been divided into three parts of five chapters, grouped under the headings: The Green Imperative – and its Vicissitudes; Building with Greater Sensitivity to People(s) and Places; and Steps Towards a Theory of the Ethics of the Built Environment. As a generalisation, the book moves from contributions that are more empirically, practically or policy oriented to those that are more theoretically oriented.

The volume opens by examining ‘The Green Imperative – and its Vicissitudes’ (the first part of the title being borrowed from Papanek’s 1995 book of the same name). Any book on the ethics of the built environment produced at this point in global history simply has to begin with the ‘green’ imperative of sustainability, which links directly to issues of human intra-generational justice, human intergenerational justice, the ethics of the human–non-human relationship (including the preservation of global biodiversity) and, ultimately, questions concerning the richness, beauty and even survival of life on Earth. Although the objective of sustainability carries a ‘green’ tag, it is now endorsed (in theory at least) by governments internationally. As Roger Talbot and Gian Carlo Magnoli point out in their contribution to this volume, before the 1987 report of the Brundtland Commission (the World Commission for Environment and Development) ‘it was difficult to identify any official social, economic or indeed environmental policies that recognised sustainable development as a significant policy objective’ (see p.91), whereas since the publication of Agenda 21, following the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), ‘it is difficult to identify government policy statements that do not’ (see p. 91).

The principle of sustainability is now also endorsed by internationally recognised architectural leaders (see, for example, Richard Rogers, Cities for a Small Planet , based on his Reith Lectures of 1995) as well as by the profession of architecture as a whole. At the level of the profession of architecture itself, for example, The Union of International Architects declared at their World Congress in 1993 that they would commit themselves, individually and professionally, to ‘place environmental and social sustainability at the core of our practices and professional responsibilities.’ Their ‘Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future’ goes on to commit the profession, inter alia , to educate all their professional contacts, including others in the building industry, clients and students, about the ‘critical importance and substantial opportunities of sustainable design’, and to ‘establish policies, regulations and practices in government and business that ensure sustainable design becomes normal practice’ (my italics). Thus, as Simon Guy and Graham Farmer note (this volume, p. 73, quoting Sudjic), it is now the case that ‘for any architect not to profess passionate [ethical] commitment to “green” buildings is professional suicide’.

Why has this transformation come about? The basic reasons are now well known. First, an increasing proportion of the planet’s still wildly increasing numbers of people are choosing or being forced to live in densely built urban developments. These developments constitute such massive resource sinks and waste generators on a global scale that, as Talbot and Magnoli put it (this volume, p. 92), ‘…present forms of urban development are clearly and unequivocally unsustainable’. Yet, second, and realistically, ‘it is simply not possible to envisage a future that is not rooted in urban living’ (ibid.). Crunch! These facts of the matter explain, in essence, why the green imperative of sustainability must now lie at the heart of considerations regarding the built environment in general. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that few matters are of more importance to the future of both humanity and the non-human world than the ways in which humans construct their built environments and live their day-to-day lives in those environments. This applies particularly in the case of our most densely built, most densely populated and fastest growing built environments – cities. Thus, as Maf Smith, John Whitelegg (one of the contributors to this volume) and Nick Williams argue in their important recent book Greening the Built Environment (1998: 214):‘The built environment must be seen not only as the major source of environmental problems, but also as the locus of the solution to these problems.’

But why should a book concerning the ethics of building begin with the issue of sustainability? Why not leave that issue to the technical skills of architects, builders, planners, and so on, and just let them ‘get on with it’? Again, the reason should be obvious – achieving a sustainable way of living is not just a technical issue (although it is often discussed as if it were), but also (and fundamentally) an ethical one. As Terry Williamson and Antony Radford put it (this volume, pp. 57–58): ‘If ethics deals with the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, then the notion of a ‘sustainable’ architecture expressed in these statements [i.e. by national and international organisations of architects] is fundamentally an ethical issue.’

Notwithstanding the many fine words endorsing the principle of sustainability in government policy statements and from the architecture profession in general, those architects who are most genuinely and deeply committed to this principle typically see a massive gap between ‘the talk’ and ‘the walk’ – an observation that goes to basic moral questions concerning governmental honesty and professional integrity. But, as ever in the real world, the issues here are rarely so clear-cut. Even with the best will in the world, there are tremendously difficult questions involved in surmounting the gap between support in principle for the objective of sustainability (‘the green imperative’) and translating that support into practice – or even into a shared understanding at a more detailed level. Thus, the chapters in Part I of this volume go beyond simply extolling the cause of sustainability and explore the technical and especially the ethical complexities of the issues involved.

Herbert Girardet (‘Greening Urban Society’) sets the stage with a detailed overview of the present urban situation worldwide, drawing particular attention to the ‘ecological footprint’ and ‘metabolism’ of cities. He points out, for example, that the ecological footprint of London, ‘the city that started it all’, ‘the mother of megacities’, now extends to around 125 times its surface area – the equivalent of Britain’s entire productive land! In the face of this sort of unsustainable situation, and drawing upon a worldwide perspective, Girardet outlines the directions in which urban society now needs to move and the resources that can be drawn upon to effect this change. John Whitelegg (‘Building Ethics into the Built Environment’) then proceeds with a case study approach in which he examines a range of ethical issues raised by some major recent projects – Heathrow Terminal 5, the Lancaster Local Plan and Calcutta’s flyover project. Reflection upon these leads him to focus, in particular, on the ethically saturated issues of place identity, empowering local residents and ...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Ethics and the built environment
• Professional ethics general General Editor: Ruth Chadwick Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: ethics and the built environment
• Part I The green imperative – and its vicissitudes
• Part II Building with greater sensitivity to people(s) and places
• Part III Steps towards a theory of the ethics of the built environment
• Index