Ethics

It goes without saying that all Architect's, as other professionals, behaviour must conform to professional ethics, or standards. As a registered architect it is expected my behaviour conforms with the requirements for registration. These are set out by the Board of Architects.

the best summary is at Board of Architects which says

"Important features of the NSW Architects Code of Professional Conduct are that architects should:
• act fairly and ethically at all times
• have a written architect-client agreement for all work undertaken
• have adequate professional indemnity cover
• keep their professional practice up to date through participation in continuing professional development activities
• disclose any conflicts of interest
• include their registration number on all business stationery and agreements."

The full code is at:
Architects Code of Professional Conduct

But what does it mean to act fairly and ethically?

We have two words in English some people use interchangeably: ethics and morals.

The Oxford definition of 'ethics' is a set of moral principles, with a word origin from the Greek ethos or character.

By contrast the definition of moral is the differentiation between right and wrong, or concerned with goodness and badness of human character. It is from the Latin mos mor or custom. It is clear the meaning has shifted from the Latin meaning as, to us, that someone has a custom does not mean it is right, but custom then implied that there was an accepted way to do things, and that that way was "right". Therefore, other ways of doing things were wrong.

Fundamentally morals are about discerning right from wrong. The set of morals is the sum total of the character developed in discerning right from wrong.

For a professional what is right is the custom, or defined by the culture. We do things in a certain way because it is the custom to do it that way. Perhaps a custom is due to the dominant or exemplar leaders doing it that way. A kind of unwritten law of peer pressure.

But underlying that is something very few people want to get to grips of. Who decided what is right and good? Is what we think 'good', really good?

Anyway can't we just say the law and unwritten laws of peer conduct define 'good'? But these laws do not define totally what is good.

The Oxford dictionary hints at this in its definition of morals, where it says moral also means "of rights or duties founded on moral not actual law". This means that the sum total of all our enforcable written laws does not cover this other "law". What law is this?

For those who believe in the God of the Bible, this is easy. Their God has set out a standard of conduct. It is contained in thousands of words, including direct commands, exemplar behaviour and expressed opinions of prophets. It is non-trivial to sort out what is required. It is designed to be that way, so that some effort is required, and so that service to God comes from love not from unthinking obedience. However, the direct commands are easy to understand, especially the ten commandments. All of the Christian ideas are founded on Judiasm. Jesus (Y'shua) defined the whole law in substance in just two commands: You shall love your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and 2. That you should love your neighbour as yourself. Both were understood as being significant and occur early in the laws set down that form the basis of Judaism. It is tradition that the Rabbis or teachers have debated about the most important verse in their law being between the section saying man is made in the image of God and the Leviticus 19:18 command to love your neighbour as yourself.

It is possible that all cultures and people have a tradition informed by a moral law pre-dating Moses, with the same basis as that law. The Bible records all people came from two. Then later all people came from 8 people and that for a long time they spoke on language and served one God. Using the bible's dating the confusion of languages was 2200BCE, indicating that only 4200 years ago all people shared one verbal moral code.

According to Jewish written history, underlying all cultures in the world is a shared original moral code that came from service to God. That we find commonality supports this.

Also despite a modern secular culture in the so called Western world, the underpinnings was a culture seeped in centuries of Christianity and topped up with widespread evangelical Protestantism, especially in Britain in the mid 1800's where nearly everyone owned a King James Version translation of the Bible and many would recite whole portions by heart.

This affected the whole culture. To illustrate the point, it has so much effect that even Communism, which became a system that denied God, has a fundamental tenet that is derived from ancient Jewish and Christian experience.

"Exodus 16:18 When they measured it with an omer, he who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating."

The social conscience of the original Communists was from their Judeo-Christian upbringings.

Every educated person acts within their culture, having acquired instructions about what is right. Some, those who read the Bible regularly, have clear instructions in their minds that are readily accessible and can inform their actions. These morals have a basis and authority 'outside' the person. They are also unchanging, having been set down approximately 1500 BCE with the law of Moses, which was re-affirmed, not abolished, by Christian thinking. Those who deny that authority, may place authority for morals in their society, or in their own observation. Some may not think about it at all, inheriting an incoherent collection of moral ideas from peers. Some may even reject all moral guidance.

Morals are likely to vary from person to person, but there will be stronger consenus between those who accept morals from an unchanging authority outside themselves.
for those who

Due to the way we use the word 'ethics', it has come to mean the customs of professional practice. The collection of beliefs that inform our actions and our character - or who we appear to others - comes from something else, the sum total of learnt experience. For those who believe in God, and who have absorbed the ideals of the Bible, morals is something greater than ethics, and is not interchangeable. It may be that for these people what is morally right may conflict with ethical practice.

People influenced by Biblical thought have a deep concern. Their morals, these ideas of right and wrong behaviour are so complex and demanding that no-one can ever live them perfectly. Hence there is built in the concept of failure and acting out of character, or being a sinner. Morals are high ideals that one strives to achieve but will often fail in achieving. If ethics is defined by these ideal morals then one should expect people may fail to achieve these ethical standards. Therefore, it is safer to define professional ethics as customs.

Notwithstanding this, the Judeo-Christian Bible does indicate that weakness is a human condition. If this is the case, it is likley that at some point every professional will fail to achieve the highest ethical standards, due to common failings such as tiredness due to life events, sickness or stress, undue pressures, time constraints and any other factor that may affect performance.

The last point was one raised by Rabbi David Freedman for Project Abraham. He stated that morals are needed to create the kind of society we want to live in. Even those who reject God entirely such as Richard Dawkins admit they would not want to live in the type of society that their science would logically generate. Rabbi Freedman continued and outlined the Measure of a Human as defined by Judaism: Charity, sanctification of God's name, avoiding evil speech or slander, visiting the sick (after 3 days), to not bear grudges or take revenge, to pursue peace, practice hospitality and give privacy.

All these points have echoes in the Christian gospel record.

Does the Measure of a Human say anything about Professional Ethics?

Charity is essentially giving. The reputation of a professional is based on the client's perception of what they have gained, so those that give more of themselves should prosper, though not necessarily make a lot of money.

At first there seems no resonance for the sanctification of God's name for professional ethics, but on consideration it is about respecting authority and giving due credit. For architecture, having a good attitude to authority may produce positive outcomes for clients.

Avoiding slander is wise in an environment with quite effective defamation law.

Visiting the sick is about consideration. In architecture where there may be deadlines good relationships would be preserved where allowances are made for sickness of participants in the team.

To bear grudges, in a small world may not be the best thing for an architect's clients as chances are you would need that person's services one day.

To pursue peace has enormous implications in the practical life of an architect. Firstly they are often required to mediate between two parties that make up the client, secondly they are often involved in contract administration where there are disputes between the client and the builder, often over money. In addition all the people on the team producing documents have niches and roles that need to be negotiated. All of this occurs in an environment often of tight deadlines, low fees and long working hours. This has the most resonance with me as I have not achieved always a high standard here, myself having a minor nervous breakdown. Certainly the lack of peace in a client, if one is sensitive to it, can destroy the creative soul an architect. Conflict only seems to breed more conflict and violently expressed unhappiness can affect the lives of a lot of people, including families of all concerned, which in a project may be a large group of people. Jesus (Y'shua) said, "Blessed are the peacemakers".

To practice hospitality, is about extending services to those who come to you, to be open. The advice is always to approach giving advice with care as an architect as even if one is not paid for it, people may rely on advice. But there is another side, Hospitality may be merely explaining and sharing architecture. This is a rich gift to society.

Giving privacy is actually one of the first duties if a professional. An architect is given many details of the private lives of people and companies, those that are indeed private should remain so.

It seems the purely moral aspects of the Measure of a Human do add something when applied to ethics.

Interestingly the Bible says something directly that fundamentally affects the practicing architect. In the law of Moses underlying the penalties of a person who has caused damage is the idea of restitution - or in old English "making good". On this is built the whole concept of liability.

In addition the law of Moses has a very tough law for builders and architects that is very thought provoking. If someone fails to build a parapet on the roof of their new house and someone falls off and dies, it says their 'blood is upon' that person who was responsible, in other words, that God will require their life. Many matters of liability are monetary, such as the replacement value of carpets if the roof leaks, but there is one thing that money can't fix, that is, a loss of life. Quite sobering.

My highest ideal of morals is the acts that come from the idea that one should love others as yourself. Not a soppy 'love', but rather rational consideration of "how would I like to be treated?" It is much easier said than done.