Blogless

We last left our discussion on design ethics with the conjecture that designers should take into account the consequences of their actions. This week, I’d like to tackle the question: "why bother?"

That may sound flippant, but it’s a serious inquiry. If we’re going to address this topic fully, we need a serious examination of our reasons for doing so. We ought to have a better answer than the legal ramifications of getting caught or moral appeals to “just because”.

Ethics, by their very definition, are supposed to be good. In a perfect world, that should be all the convincing we need. However, there’s a reason why we study ethics: not playing fair is often advantageous. In fact, being ethical might result in lower profits or losing a job.

What we need is an objective look at costs and benefits of ethics. That’s our theme for this week.

Goin’ on a Prison Break

Rather than try to come up with some kind of taxonomy for ethical and unethical design activities, I want to start by talking in the abstract –focusing only on the consequences of good choices and bad choices— with a thought experiment called The Prisoner’s Dilemma.

If you’re not familiar with it, Wikipedia’s got your back:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal.

• If one testifies (”defects”) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence.
• If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.
• If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence.

Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

Granted, it’s a simplistic representation, but nonetheless, I believe it illustrates the conventional ethical conflict well:

1. There is a higher payoff for unethical behavior. If you rat out your partner and he stays quiet, you get the best outcome: no jail time.
2. If you trust your partner, and he turns you in, you stand to lose the most out of any option. We tend to think that doing the wrong thing is risky, but it turns out that being good is the biggest gamble.
3. If you defect, the worst that can happen is that you get 5 years. As such, defecting is the safest position.

In general, if we assume that everyone out there is good (or at least playing by the rules), there is considerable incentive to do bad. If our objective is to make design ethics normative, this is part of what we’re up against.

What Next?

Ideally, everyone would do the right thing. The Prisoner’s Dilemma teaches us that cooperating is risky, but it guarantees a reasonably good outcome for everyone involved. So we might consider that a goal.

I’d like to entertain another proposal, however. Perhaps we can change the rules of the game. In a field of less than reputable players, can we make ethics a winning advantage?

Stay tuned.