Place and Time - Sustainable Design: The Science of Sustainability and Green Engineering - page 175

greatest number. “The Tragedy of the Commons” points to the problem of con-
sequentialism and utilitarianism in the absence of sustainability. That is, if people
view values exclusively in terms of their present and personal needs, collective
costs will be incurred. For example, if energy needs of this generation is the sole
target of the “greatest good,” future generations may be left with enormous costs
(e.g., global climate change, loss of habitat, exposure to persistent pollutants).
Green design is our obligation to society. This is deontology , or duty-based
ethics. Immanuel Kant is recognized as the principal advocate of this school of
thought. Duty can be summed up as the categorical imperative. To paraphrase
Kant, the categorical imperative states that when deciding whether to act in a certain
way, you should ask yourself if your action (or inaction) will make for a better
world if all others in your situation acted in the same way. In other words, should
your action be universalized? If so, it is your duty to take that action. If not, it is
your duty to avoid that action.
This requires that for a design to meet these ethical requirements, its potential
good and bad outcomes must be viewed cumulatively. A single action or step in
the design process is less important than the comprehensive result of each action
or step. Thus, the life cycle dictates whether the action is right or wrong, at
least from a design standpoint. The benefits and risks to the environment may
cause one to rethink a process in the life cycle. Thus, the life cycle illustrates
what we might call the “green categorical imperative”. We may very much like
one of our steps (e.g., a large building lot that provides a vista), but if it leads to
negative consequences (e.g., housing that is not affordable), these may outweigh
the single-minded benefits.
Green design is not the exclusive domain of duty ethics. In consequentialism,
the life-cycle viewpoint is one of the palliative approaches to dealing with the
problem of “ends justifying the means.” In fact, John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism's
axiom of “greatest good for the greatest number of people” is moderated by his
harm principle , which, at its heart takes into account the potential impact of an
action on others now and in the future. That is, even though an act can be good
for the majority, it may still be unethical if it causes undue harm to even one
person.
The life cycle also comes into play in contractarianism , as articulated by Thomas
Hobbes as social contract theory. For example, John Rawls has moderated the
social contract with the “veil of ignorance” as a way to consider the perspective of
the weakest, one might say “most disenfranchised,” members of society. Finally,
the rational-relationship ethical frameworks incorporate empathy into all ethical
decisions when they ask the guiding question: What is going on here? In other
words, what benefit or harm, based on reason, can I expect from actions brought
about by the decision I am about to make? One calculus of this harm or benefit
is to be empathetic to all others, particularly the weakest members of society,
those with little or no “voice.” Thus, the design professional must keep these