Ethics, Care, and the Architect’s Responsibility to Society and Environment

Jessamine Fraser; Andrew Burgess; Megan Burfoot; Charles Walker

doi:10.21625/essd.v8i4.972

Jessamine Fraser , Dr. Andrew Burgess , Dr. Megan Burfoot , Prof. Charles Walker

https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v8i4.972

Issue
Special issue (2023): Towards Resilient Communities

Submitted
July 11, 2023

Accepted
September 13, 2023

Published
September 30, 2023

Keywords:

Feminist Ethics of Care, Professional Ethics, Responsibility

PDF XML

Abstract

In the context of both a crisis of affordable housing and a climate and biodiversity crisis, what is the architect’s responsibility to society and the planet? New Zealand architects’ code of ethics is set out in legislation: Architects Rules 2006. These rules address the obligation of the architect to the client, and to the profession. However, beyond a requirement to uphold the law and to report on risk to public health and safety, there are no specific rules addressing the impact of architecture on future occupants, wider society, the climate, or the biosphere. Arguably, architects are legally obligated to meet the needs and goals of their clients, over any responsibility they may feel to design socially and environmentally sensitive and resilient buildings. Feminist ethics of care emphasises the importance of our relationships with others. Fundamental to care ethics is attentiveness to the needs of others who we are in relation with, and increasingly, our understanding of these relations is being extended beyond the direct relationship to a global and planetary view. Taking an ethics of care lens to the Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects, we contend that these rules are inadequate to equip architects to face present and future challenges. We argue that responsible design needs to be embedded as an ethical obligation of architects. The underlying ethical framework of architects’ professional ethics should be reconsidered in relation to the needs of our society and our planet.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Journal:

Baier, A. Trusting People. Philosophical Perspectives 6, 137–153 (1992).

Baier, A. What Emotions Are About. Philosophical Perspectives 4, 1–29 (1990).

Buckwalter, W. Theoretical Motivation of “Ought Implies Can.” Philosophia 48, 83–94 (2020).

Chadha-Sridhar, I. Care as a Thick Ethical Concept. Res Publica 1–19 (2023) doi:10.1007/s11158-023-09580-9.

Cohen, S. & Fenster, T. Architecture of care: social architecture and feminist ethics. J Archit 26, 257–285 (2021).

Collier, J. The Art of Moral Imagination: Ethics in the Practice of Architecture. J. Bus. Ethics 66, 307–317 (2006).

Davion, V. Autonomy, Integrity, and Care. Social Theory and Practice 19, 161–182 (1993).

Fernandez-Antolin, M.-M., Río, J. M. del & González-Lezcano, R. A. Building Performance Simulations and Architects against Climate Change and Energy Resource Scarcity. Earth 3, 31–44 (2022).

Gilligan, C. Revisiting “In a Different Voice.” Learn. Landscapes 11, 25–30 (2018).

Hurk, M. van den & Siemiatycki, M. Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building. Int J Urban Regional 42, 704–722 (2018).

Khoury, K. B. Ethics in Architecture Responsibilities and Moral Decisions in Sustainable Design. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics 41–53 (2021) doi:10.34810/rljaev1n12id389295.

Krasny, E. CARE. AA Files 38–39 (2019).

Larson, M. S. Professions today: self-criticism and reflections for the future. Sociol. Probl. e Práticas 27–42 (2018) doi:10.7458/spp20188814796.

MacKay, K. Authenticity and Normative Authority: Addressing the Agency Dilemma with Values of One’s Own. J Soc Philos 51, 349–370 (2020).

Mackenzie, C. Relational Autonomy, Normative Authority and Perfectionism. J Soc Philos 39, 512–533 (2008).

Marcuse, P. Professional Ethics and Beyond: Values in Planning. J. Am. Inst. Planners 42, 264–274 (1976).

Motta, P. Urbanization and Sustainability after the COVID-19 Pandemic. The International Journal of Social Quality10, 1–28 (2020).

O’Dowd, O. “Caring-about” and the Problem of Overwhelming Obligations. Hypatia 31, 795–809 (2016).

Power, E. R. & Bergan, T. L. Care and Resistance to Neoliberal Reform in Social Housing. Hous Theory Soc 36, 426–447 (2019).

Puka, B. The Liberation of Caring; A Different Voice For Gilligan’s “Different Voice.” Hypatia 5, 58–82 (1990).

Radford, A. Responsive cohesion as the foundational value in architecture. J Archit 14, 511–532 (2009).

Radzik, L. A Coherentist Theory of Normative Authority. J Ethics 6, 21–42 (2002).

Ray, N. Architectural ethics. Research Ethics Review 1, 67–72 (2005).

Sadri, H. Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards Humanity*. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics 5, 86–96 (2021).

Salloch, S. Same same but different: why we should care about the distinction between professionalism and ethics. BMC Méd. Ethics 17, 44 (2016).

Sander‐Staudt, M. The Unhappy Marriage of Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Hypatia 21, 21–39 (2006).

Schindler, S. Context, Community, and Capital: Keywords for the Architecture of Housing under Neoliberalism. Footprint 13, 55–72 (2019).

Seidel, A. D., Kim, J. T. & Tanaka, I. B. R. Architects, Urban Design, Health, and the Built Environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 29, 241–68 (2012).

Sorkin, M. (2014). The Architect’s Dilemma: When to Say No. Architectural Record, 202(6), 176.

Spector, T. Publicness as an architectural value. J Archit Urbanism 38, 180–186 (2014).

Waldon, J. Rights in Conflict. Ethics 99, 503–519 (1989).

Wickersham, J. From Disinterested Expert to Marketplace Competitor: How Anti-Monopoly Law Transformed the Ethics and Economics of American Architecture in the 1970s. Archit. Theory Rev. 20, 138–158 (2015).

Book:

Alexander, Larry and Michael Moore, "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/ethics-deontological/

Driver, Julia, The History of Utilitarianism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Fisher, T. Ethics for Architects - 50 Dilemmas of Professional Practice. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2010).

Held, V. The Ethics of Care - Personal, Political, and Global. (Oxford university Press, 2006).

Hankivsky, O. Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108, 252–264 (2014).

Hursthouse, Rosalind and Glen Pettigrove, "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/ethics-virtue/

Kekes, J. (2001). moral imagination. In L. C. Becker, & C. B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (2nd ed.). Routledge. Credo Reference: https://networkservices.aut.ac.nz/ezproxy.cgi?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/routethics/moral_imagination/0?institutionId=5349

Varden, Helga (forthcoming). Kantian Care. In Amy Baehr & Asha Bhandary (eds.), Caring for Liberalism: Dependency and Political Theory. pp. 50-74. https://philarchive.org/rec/VARKC

Wolff, J. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. (2021).

Legislation, Professional Code

American Institute of Architects (AIA), Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. (2020).

Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) & Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), Architects’ Model Statutory Code of Professional Standards and Conduct. (2003)

Architects Council of Europe (ACE), European Deontological Code. (2018)

Architects’ Registration Board (ARB). The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice. (2017)

Engineering New Zealand Institute of Engineering Professionals (IEP) Code of Ethical Conduct. (2016).

National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), Model Rules of Conduct. (2018).

New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA), Guide to Architects’ Services.

New Zealand Government, Building (Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners) Order 2021.

New Zealand Government, Cabinet Office Circular: Policy Framework for Occupational Regulation. (1999).

New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Act 2005.

New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Rules 2006.

New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB), Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects. (2018).

Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Occupational regulation reforms in the building and construction sector. (2023).

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Code of Professional Conduct. (2004).

Authors

Jessamine Fraser

PhD Student, School of Future Environments, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand

[email protected] (Primary Contact)

Dr. Andrew Burgess

Head of Architecture Department, School of Future Environments, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand

Dr. Megan Burfoot

Lecturer, School of Future Environments, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand

Prof. Charles Walker

Head of School, School of Future Environments, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand

Fraser, J., Burgess, A., Burfoot, M., & Walker, C. (2023). Ethics, Care, and the Architect’s Responsibility to Society and Environment. Environmental Science & Sustainable Development, 8(4), 01–18. https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v8i4.972

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

With the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher's final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher's request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author's own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:

The Work is the Author's original work;
The Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
The Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
The Work has not previously been published;
The Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
The Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author's breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 7 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher's use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2023-07-11
Accepted 2023-09-13
Published 2023-09-30

1. Why Should We Care?

Globally and locally, humanity is grappling with a series of interconnected crises: climate change, biodiversity loss, the implications of the covid 19 pandemic, the cost of living and unaffordable housing, as well as democratic and social struggles impacting community wellbeing. Architecture plays a role in creating and exacerbating these issues, but can also play a role in the mitigation and resolution of them (⁹; ¹⁸; ²⁸). At the least, architects could strive to not further contribute to these crises, and at best could be part of working towards a better future for all. Yet, this paper argues, the scope of and framing of our professional role can limit architects’ agency to act and thereby their perceived responsibility to act.

Care is our first experience and we intuitively understand what it is to care ³⁸ – to have a care for, to take care of, to care about – though the word care and the concept of care can seem elusive or open to interpretation. Care incorporates the practical act of providing for life and well-being – including the provision of shelter and its creation and maintenance ¹³. Care as “attention and minding” is “functionally nearly essential” ³. Care also encompasses the emotional experience of worry, concern, affection; worry for events real and imagined, and worry for one’s own well-being and the wellbeing of others whether particular others or more general care for others in society ¹⁹. Incorporating both action and intention, care is both “practice and value” ³⁸.

The role of the architect incorporates these elements of care ⁶ ¹³, and how they are articulated and prioritised can affect the qualities of the outcome. If the architect cares more for the client's concerns regarding profitability, or more for their reputation and the winning of awards, than for the long-term social and environmental impacts of their building, they risk what is first deemed a successful building becoming problematic over time ²⁰,¹¹. Yet the risk of prioritising social and environmental outcomes over other more immediate concerns may be professional or business failure. Discussions of ethics often deal with competing rights ³²); architecture, however, is the art of balancing competing considerations such that they are in concert rather than competition ¹² ²², and architects "are uniquely qualified to exercise 'moral imagination' when it comes to situations where moral deliberation is needed" ⁷.

This article forms part of ongoing research into architectural professional ethics and architects' accountability and agency. Starting with a brief outline of the architects' role, especially in relation to the aforementioned crises, followed by a review of professional ethics and the ethics of care, we then undertake a review of the current New Zealand Architects' Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct (2018), including a comparision with selected international codes of ethics and/or conduct, to assess the adequacy of the New Zealand architects' code of ethics, in the face of these multiplicitous crises. This paper has not undertaken a historical review of previous interations of the architects' code of ethics, which is an important part of the next steps in this research. Related to both ethics and care, are Te Ao Māori notions of kaitiakitanga (guardianship and care for the environment), manaaki (support and care of others), and whanaungatanga (relationship, kinship); while this paper does not explore these concepts, any ethical framework for architects in Aotearoa New Zealand should incorporate tikanga Māori.

1.1 The Architect’s Responsibility

Understanding the architect's role, and the place of ethics with it, requires understanding architecture as a profession. Professionalism is at core a social contract or bargain ¹⁷) made between "knowledge communities" ¹⁴) and society, wherein those experts are accorded certain privileges and protections in exchange for self-policing and serving public interest ¹⁴ ²⁶ ¹⁷). But professionalisation is more than just a "search for status, trust and autonomy through the certification of superior knowledge" ¹⁴, the value of the work to the professional is greater because of its value to the individual and to society than of its market value ¹⁴ ²⁶. It is broadly and relatively uncritically accepted within the profession, that architecture is a public good ³¹. The establishment of a professional body to regulate both education and registration, minimum standards of knowledge and competency, and having a code of ethics are all taken to be evidence for this ¹⁴ ³⁷ ¹⁷). Architects' professional organisations set out the role of architects and the necessary areas of competency required to perform that role.

A range of activities make up the scope of architects professional services, from site selection through to construction completion (NZIA). There are points all along the process of creating new buildings and urban spaces, at which architects' skills and knowledge can positively impact the social and environmental outcomes of our work -or indeed negatively impact these outcomes (Fernandez-Antolin et al 2022;

Architects:

Influence the framing and goals of the brief.
Inform and/or determine the siting and bulk & location of the building.
Resolve the organisation of space and the relations of activities and needs.
Advise on and make decisions for the selection of materials.
Advise on and coordinate consultation with interested parties and affected groups.
Manage tendering, negotiation, and the establishment and administration of the construction contract.
Observe the construction of the building, ensuring compliance with the design documentation and intent.

1.2. Ethics and Care

Feminist ethics of care was first articulated in the 1980s in response to a perceived gap in traditional western ethics, in that it did not address the domestic sphere, only the public ³⁸. Further, traditional ethical traditions also typically centre on the rational autonomous agent, a way of being that does not reflect many women's reality or experience of the world ³⁸. Carol Gilligan's seminal 1982 work A Different Voice identified that psychology and ethics at the time only studied men and were missing half the population, half the sample ¹⁰. In listening to the voices of women on moral issues, Gilligan heard "the voices of psychological theory [of the time] intoning separation, autonomy, and independence, and…women's voices speaking about relationships and interdependence" ¹⁰. Her work highlighted "the tension between human psychology and the culture of patriarchy" ¹⁰. Following on from this work, Nel Noddings set out to formulate a theory of ethics based upon the care perpective that Gilligan identified ⁸. Care ethics focuses on the relations between people, emphasising that the ethical response is dependant on circumstance and the nature of the relation ³⁸. In this way care ethics can grapple with dependent relations, disparate need, and questions of power ²⁷ -an intersectional lens deepens the abiltiy of care ethics to address these imbalances ³⁹). While at first care ethics was adopted principally into domestic relations and caring professions (eg medical professions) since the early part of this century, care ethics has increasingly been used to examine wider social, political, and global concerns ³⁸.

Although the current NZ code of ethics is not explicitly grounded in any particular ethical tradition or framework, the political and theoretical space that the code was developed within can be understood as informed by the dominant Western ethical traditions of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics ³⁷.

Consequentialism/Utilitarianism ³⁶:

The rightness of an action is determined by the consequences of the action.
Emphasises impartiality and agent neutrality.

Deontology ³⁵:

Sets out duties and rules.
Emphasises the intention of the autonomous moral agent.

Virtue Ethics ⁴⁰:

Centred on the moral character of the agent.
Practical wisdom from lived experience.
Action and intention are important.

Ethics of Care ³⁸:

Caring Relations.
Relationally Autonomous.
Requires both caring action and caring intention.

A key difference between care ethics and the dominant Western traditions is the focus, not on an autonomous disinterested agent, but on the caring relations that we all experience and operate within, and what that means for our responsibilty to care for others ³⁸. Virginia Held argues that these dominant moral theories are too abstract and that they approach moral questions as "conflicts between egoistic individual interests… and universal moral principals", overlooking the everyday space between these extremes -it is this liminal zone that care ethics is particularly interested in ³⁸.

Due to this relational aspect of care, care theorists acknowledge that rather than being truly autonomous, people are relationally-autonomous or heteronomous agents ¹⁵. The agency dilemma suggests that an agent who is not autonomous – who is influenced or dominated by an other - cannot be considered to be moral, or held morally responsible for their actions ¹⁵. Similarly, the concept that “ought implies can” (that is if a person cannot act then they cannot be morally obligated to do so) removes moral agency and responsibility in the absence of the ability to act ⁴. Some feminist theorists have argued for the ability of heteronomous agents to be held morally responsible ¹⁵, and despite the wide acceptance of “ought implies can”, there are arguments against this concept, ⁴ suggests that whilst we may not blame someone for failing to act where they cannot, that does not necessarily remove their moral responsibility. This has impacts for professionals obligated to serve their client’s interest – are their actions truly autonomous, and if not can they be held morally accountable? Professional codes of ethics include requirements to act autonomously, or disinterestedly, yet also to serve the client interest within the bounds of the law ¹⁴. Though not a heteronomous agent (subject to rule from outside themself) the architect’s decisions are subject to building and planning codes, client needs and preferences, cultural influences, economic conditions. ¹⁶ makes the case for “relational automony” as a means to assert the normative autonomy of an agent whose autonomy is “impaired”, using the example of a patient in a heathcare scenario. Whilst the scenario of a healthcare patient, and that of an architect are dissimilar, the concept of relational autonomy holds potential as a way to consider the intersecting roles and obligations of professionalism.

While some theorists locate ethics of care within virtue ethics, and others consider it the 'primary virtue', Held (2006) maintains that without care nothing else can exist (that one's survival, from birth, is dependant on care) and frames care as the broader design within which all other ethical traditions should be located. Regardless of social status, life experience, or health, everyone will experience care -either giving or receiving -over the course of their life ³⁹), and will have a sense of the quality of that care, whether good, bad, or indifferent ³⁸. Sander-Staudt (2006) addresses the "unhappy marriage" of virtue ethics and care ethics, making the case for each to maintain "theoretical autonomy", avoiding entanglement or domination of one over the other, whilst providing mutual benefit. In a similar vein, Helga Varden (forthcoming) argues that "Bringing Kant's philosophy into dialogue with care theorists…advances the insights of both traditions by showing one way to arrive at a multifaceted, yet unified account of human care relations where our embodied, social as well as our rational natures are given due consideration."

Criticisms of care ethics include the care-giver dominating the care-reciever, and conversely the care-giver subsumming themself to the act of care, putting the needs of others ahead of their own ²⁷,²¹. Toxic forms of care do exist and are part of why an ethics of care is necessary, as is an understanding of justice ethics to support it ³⁸. Ethical care should involve enabling people (both care-givers and carerecievers) to realise their own agency ³⁸. ⁵ addresses the contradictory conceptions of care -as complex and often problematic social practices, and as a moral ideal -and frames care as a "thick ethical concept" conveying both discriptive and evaluative concepts.

Feminist criticism of care ethics includes concerns that cares ethics reinforces traditional gender roles and attitudes ²¹, and takes a narrow (white, western) view of womanhood and care ³⁹. The importance of ‘feminist’ in feminist ethics of care is that care ethics is for all genders ³⁸. Care ethics takes a critical view of traditional practices of care and the patriarchal conditions under which they are created ³⁸. These traditional practices can obscure and oppress reciprocal values of care, and care ethics seeks to bring attention to these values and extend them “as appropriate throughout society, along with justice.” ³⁸ ,³⁹ sets out an argument for an “intersectionally inspired care ethics”, and the corollary of incorporating care into intersectional theory. Stating that “care ethics and intersectionality share normative ideals towards social justice”, Hankivsky suggests that care ethics in dialogue with intersectionality can “punctuate attention to social diversity and inequities of power” ³⁹.

"It is the relatedness of human beings, built and rebuilt, that the ethics of care is being developed to try to understand, evaluate, and guide. " -Virgina Held (2006)³⁸.

2. The Current Code

The Registered Architects Act 2005 establishes the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) and requires the board to formulate a set of rules for registered architects. These are then established in law as Registered Architects Rules 2006, and were last updated in 2018. The Act requires those rules to contain minimum standards of competence, minimum standard for demonstrating competence, and minimum standards of ethical conduct. The current Rules have a broad outline of the areas of competence for registration, a detailed accounting of the process to maintain registration, and then a set of specific rules for ethical conduct, which is also reproduced as a two page document, the New Zealand Architects' Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct, by the NZRAB.

The current Act replaced the Architects Act 1963, under which the Architects Education and Registration Board (AERB) was responsible for the registration of architects, and the creation of a code of ethics.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has recently begun a review of the Architects Act 2006 as part of broader building industry reforms. These reforms are guided by the 1999 Cabinet Policy for Occupational Regulation, which requires occupational regulation where there is a risk of significant harm to the public. The Ministry's consultation document poses several questions, including whether architects still need to be regulated by legislation, and how the gap between Registered Architects and Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) could be closed ⁵⁷.

2.1. Comparison with Other Codes

This study involved an analysis of the New Zealand Architects’ Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct 2018, alongside selected codes of conduct and ethics for architects from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union, as well as the codes of ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) and Engineers in New Zealand. These are set out in Table 1.

Table 1.Codes Included in Study
Country / Union	Organisation/Authority	Title	Year	Status
Aotearoa New Zealand	NZ Registered Architects Board (NZRAB)	Architects’ Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct	2018	Legal
Aotearoa New Zealand	Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment: Licensed Building Practitioners	Code of Ethics for Licenced Building Practitioners	2022	Legal
Aotearoa New Zealand	Engineering New Zealand Institute of Engineering Professionals	Code of Ethical Conduct	2016	Prof
United Kingdom	Architects’ Registration Board (ARB)	The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice	2017	Legal
United Kingdom	Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)	Code of Professional Conduct	2021	Prof
Australia	Architects’ Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA), and The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)	Architects’ Model Statutory Code of Professional Standards and Conduct	2003	Model
USA	National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB)	Model Rules of Conduct	2018	Model
USA	American Institute of Architects (AIA)	Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct	2020	Prof
European Union	Architects’ Council of Europe (ACA)	Deontological Code for Providers of Architectural Services	2016	Model

This study involved an analysis of the New Zealand Architects' Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct 2018, alongside selected codes of conduct and ethics for architects from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union, as well as the codes of ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) and Engineers in New Zealand. These are set out in . As previously noted, the New Zealand code of ethics is embeded in legislation. The ARB architects code is also required by legislation, Architects Act 1997, and can be used in disciplinary matters relating to registration. The Australian model code contains "the core requirements to be adopted in each State and Territory" to meet the requirements of the 2003 Act, where it would then be enforceable (AACA & RAIA 2003). The NCARB model rules are also designed to be adopted by the registration boards in various states, and to be enforceable in relation to architects' legal status and ability to practice. The AIA and RIBA codes of ethics are only enforceable over those architects who choose to join these professional institutes. The EU Deontological Code is not "legally binding unless it is made binding either by European Union or National legislation or by contract between a provider of architectural services and a client or other user or otherwise as a matter of public or private law" ⁴⁷.

The various codes have different degrees of organisation and categorization. Out of the codes for architects, the NZRAB code is the most simple, having been reduced to a two-page document, with no preamble and no categories organizing the seventeen. The ARB code has a simple format, with a list of twelve headline rules, for a total of forty- one clauses. Like the NZRAB code the ARB code has not organized these twelve headline rules into categories. The ACA model code has organised their forty-two rules/clauses into four sets of obligations: General Obligations, Obligations to the Client, Obligations to the Profession, and Obligations to the Public. The Australian model code is structured in two parts. Part A are the Professional Standards and Part B is the Service and Conduct Standards. This creates a clear distinction between the disciplinary and legal function of the code, and the aspirational ethical guidelines of the code. Within Part B, the Australian model code is organised under seven categories, similar to those of the ACA model code, with some additional specific categories. The AIA code of ethics is also similar to the ACA code with Obligations to the Profession being split to add Obligations to Colleagues as a separate category, and Obligations to the Public being split into categories for both Public and Environment.

Following the organization of the various codes, this research identifies five areas of attention:

General Professionalism
Responsibilities to Client
Responsibilities to Profession
Responsibilities to Society
Responsibilities for the Environment

Whilst there is often overlap between the application of particular clauses , we have reviewed the different codes, and attempted to determine the weighting/prioritisation given to these five areas of attention by each code. Appendix A contains a table of these allocations.

Figure 1.Number of Standards in Each Architects’ Code (for Registration) Associated with the Five Areas of Attention

Figure 1 shows the number of rules or standards in each code of ethics for architects (excluding the professional organisations), and how they are assigned to the five areas of attention identified above. The first observation is how much leaner than the other codes, the New Zealand architects code is. Australian, British, and European codes are fairly similar in the number of standards/rules included, but vary in weighting. The weighting of the codes is clearer in the pie charts shown in Figure 2 (which includes the professional orgnaisations).

The New Zealand code does not include any requirement to have a care for or consider impacts on the environment, and the only public interest matters it covers is health and safety. The code is weighted towards the service provided to the client and the protection of the profession. This weighting is apparent in the other codes as well, and is in line with observations made by others, including Hossien Sadri in a similar review of architectural professional ethics in 2021. Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards Humanity compared the 2008 draft text of the Chamber of Architects of Turkey Deontological Codes in Architecture, the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct 2005, and the AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct 2007. Sadri observes that “these documents are written in order to identify the boundaries of the profession, and aim to protect its market share, improve its image, obtain cultural capital and get public approval for the profession” ²⁵. The RIBA and AIA codes have been updated since this earlier study, and it is interesting to note that the AIA 2020 code of ethics is the most evenly distributed code across the five areas of attention.

Figure 2.Percentage of Each International Architects’ Code Associated with the Five Areas of Attention

As previously noted, the Australian model code is in two parts: professional standards, and service and conduct standards. Comparing the service and conduct standards alone to the New Zealand architects’ code of ethics, suggests that the New Zealand code is a service and conduct code, rather than a code of professional ethics. The New Zealand code is also very similar to the NCARB Model Rules of Conduct which is explictly a set of conduct rules for disciplinary purposes only, not a code of ethics ⁵⁰.

Looking at Responsibilities to Society more closely, the inclusion or exclusion of equity issues is a significant difference across the codes. Note that this study has allocated compliance with laws under General Professionalism rather than Responsibilities to Society as this is principally referencing building and planning legislation, construction law, contract law, fraud, tax law, etc, though a broad interpretation would include complance with nondiscrimination laws. Neither the New Zealand code nor the NCARB code include any rules or standards regarding discrimination or equity. The ACE, RIBA, and AIA codes all include requirements to pay employees and interns equitably, and an obligation to attend to the education of students and trainees working under a registered/licenced architect.

Interestingly, while several codes include requirements to provide 'fair' service fees, the ACE code also has clauses specifically addressing low fees and "unscrupulous under-resourcing" ⁴⁷. There have historically been issues in Anglo-American countries with professional organisations being criticised or even sued for being "antitrust" due to professional codes containing rules against competive fees and client 'poaching' (¹² ¹²,³³. The ACE phrasing of ‘unscrupulous under-resourcing’ appears to be a way to address the concern of fees becoming too low to provide a professional service without conflicting with anti-trust legislation.

Marcuse (1976) addresses the importance of whistleblowing with regard to matters of public health and safety, and all of the codes including the New Zealand code, do include requirements to report on matters that affect public health and safety. The UK and US codes all include a requirement to report on colleagues for breaching the code, which may be more about protecting the reputation of the profession. An interesting inclusion in the Australian model code is the requirement to inform the client, not only of the client’s legal obligations, but also of their obligations to moral rights raised by the project ⁴⁶

Figure 3.Number of Standards in Each New Zealand Code (for Regulation) Associated with the Five Areas of Attention

Figure 4.Percentage of Each New Zealand Code Associated with the Five Areas of Attention

Comparing the New Zealand registered architects’ code of ethics, with the new code for licenced building practitioners and the engineers’ code offers shows a greater similarity in the goal of simplicity and brevity. Figure 3 shows the number of rules or standards in each code and how they are assigned to the five areas of attention. The architects’ code has more clauses related to General Professionalism and significantly more for Responsibilities to Profession, where the LBP code has none. The engineers’ code is the leanest, but also the most evenly weighted, though profession, society and environment add up to one third, with professionalism and client responsibilities each a third (see Figure 4). Both the LBP and engineers’ codes have requirements to avoid harm to the environment, which as previously noted is lacking in the architects’ code.

While, like the architects' code, neither the IEP or LBP codes address Te Tiriti O Waitangi or any matters under Tikanga Māori, both codes are available Te Reo Māori, and the LBP code is also available in Chinese, Hindi, and Samaon. The LBP code does require acknowledgement and respect of "cultural norms and values of clients and colleagues."

2.2. Is the New Zealand Code Adequate?

In his 1976 article Professional Ethics and Beyond, Peter Marcuse, sets out nine "ethical prescriptions" with the source of obligation, and the nature of enforcement, for planning as a profession. These are:

Allegiance (to client)
Autonomy (independent advice)
Knowledge and Competence (skill and specialised knowledge)
Guild Loyalty (to professional colleagues and to the professional body)
Concern for the Public Interest (an essential ingredient in definitions of professions.
Dissent (whistleblowing and organisational flexibility)
Loyalty (to employer)
Advancement of Knowledge (commitment to research and development)
Statutory Responsibilities (building code, contract law)

Figure 5.New Zealand Codes (NZRAB, LBP, IEP) Related to Marcuse’s Ethical Prescriptions of Planning

Situating the New Zealand architects' code of ethics within Marcuse's framework highlights how, other than the requirements to comply with legislation and to report on risk, the rules all fall under the professional obligation and are enforceable, rather than aspirational or hortatory. More concerning is how heavily weighted to client allegiance the LBP code of ethics is, and its complete lack of clauses relating to autonomy. The requirement to inform and educate the client comes closest to the idea of professional autonomy but is framed such that it returns responsibility to the client: "You must provide your client with sufficient information and advice to enable them to make an informed decision to enable you to continue with your building work." (Building (Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners) Order 2021).

While the existing New Zealand architects' code of ethics deals only with that which can be clearly defined for the purposes of discipline (the architect either did or did not do), it does address ethical considerations such as honesty (though this is a fraught concept in itself ²)), conflicts of interest, and abuse of authority. These are, however, principally in relation to the client or the contract, or to the profession. No part of the current code requires New Zealand registered architects to be responsible in their design work and professional or community relationships, beyond the minimum financial and technical matters. As ²⁵ also found "issues such as [the] construction industry, construction techniques and materials which are directly related to the field of architecture but are not included in architects' job descriptions, remain outside of the interests of architectural ethics."

By weighting the architect's ethical obligations to the service provided to the client, the existing code leaves open the question of whether the architect is truly autonomous with respect to public and environmental considerations, or whether their decisions and actions are pre-empted by their duty to the client ¹⁴. Arguably, this puts the profession in a position where society may not be able to hold architects morally responsible for their actions in relation to these matters, if they cannot be deemed to be acting autonomously from their clients' goals and intentions ¹⁵. This framing casts architects as passive in the face of our collective crises ²⁵.

The existing NZ code does not address matters of environmental responsibility, and the only matter of public interest is health & safety, and the architect's obligation to report on risk. A glaring absence is any reference to our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi or considerations of tikanga Māori. Viewed through a care ethics lens the current New Zealand architects' code of ethics is biased towards legal and contractual issues and to the maintenance of reputation, rather than care and the maintenance of relations. We conclude that the existing New Zealand architects' code of ethics would be more accurately described as a code of conduct only. As Peter ¹⁷ said: "if a given task is harmful, executing it professionally is not desirable" and with regard to ethical considerations the code is woefully incomplete and is not adequate to deal with broader public and environmental issues, let alone the crises that we currently face.

3. Towards A New Design

Professions are founded in a position of disinterest, the idea that the professional acts not in their own interest, but for what is right ¹⁴. That disinterest creates distance, exacerbating accusations of elitism ¹⁴, suggesting that disinterest as an ideal may no longer serve professions, creating mistrust where once it served to create trust. Care being opposite to disinterest can provide a new model to underpin ethical principles, that is responsive and reflective of an increasingly pluralistic society. The principle of disinterest aims to put good outcomes and best practice ahead of the professional's own interests, even ahead of client interests where those go against the public good. Ethical care can still provide this intended outcome of ethical disinterest, as care serves the needs of the particular other(s) rather than one's own interests ³⁸. This requires an understanding of whoand what-is included in the care relation beyond the client. To recreate trust the profession needs to build and maintain relationships with society and communities outside of the profession and industry ⁵⁷,¹⁴.

Architecture is a “weak profession” and its “main collective task as an organised profession seems to be patrolling and defending boundaries against encroaching professions” ¹⁴. Exacerbating this issue is the lack of “moral guidance” such that the potential role of the profession in “the protection of social community and wellbeing, education and proficiency” fails to come to fruition ¹². A strong ethical foundation – through education and the profession is key to architects retaining and excercising agency in the areas of their expertise ²⁴. Although typically framed in close conjunction, professionalism and ethics are distinct ²⁶. “Professionalism as a group-specific moral orientation” limits the scope of the ethical discourse within any profession, unless that profession engages in “participatory and inclusive discussion … particularly focused on the voices of those who have been overlooked in the past” ²⁶. Ethics constitutes an integral component of the self policing that forms part of the “professional bargin” professions make with society ¹⁷, and any professional ethical framework must start by asking “what are experts for, what are they expert in, who should the public trust and why, and most emphatically, to whom are experts accountable?” ¹⁴. Part of the answer to Larson’s questions, is that an ethical framework should equip and support architects to address considerations of public good, including the environment, in addition to their professional and contractual obligations to clients ³¹.

What might a new architectural ethical framework look like?

General Professionalism → Autonomy
Responsibilities to Client → Service
Responsibilities to Profession → Colleagiality
Responsibilities to Society → Public
Responsibilities to the Environment → Ecosphere

Figure 6.From Marcuse’s Ethical Prescriptions to Loci of Relation

Figure 6 shows how the loci of relation relate to Peter Marcuse’s ethical prescriptions (1976). Statutory responsibilities are left to the side in this configuration, as the obligation to comply with legislation is the fact of legislation. Dissent is related to automony, which alongside competence is the foundation of general professionalism. Marcuse seperated out advancement of knowledge (something not addressed in the current New Zealand architects’ code) in his analysis of ethics within the planning profession in the United States. Advancement of knowledge is related to education and training, and raising standards of excellence, and is here relinked back through the guild to colleagiality.

The comparision of codes of ethics and conduct identified areas of attention focused upon the responsibilities of architects. Building upon the distinction between autonomous and relationally autonomous, and the idea that the autonomy of architects is relational to external factors and influences, these areas of attention can be refocused onto the 'relational' aspect of each area, enabling them to be reframed as loci of relation: Ethics of care theorists have generally argued that as care is situational and responsive, a code is not the way to achieve ethical relations and that care ethics must be embedded in practice to avoid it becoming a box checking exercise ³⁸. Collier argues that "universalistic principles and rules are of little use to [architects]" due to the difficulty of knowing which set of rules in a pluralistic society to apply and how to apply them "in complex human situations where exceptions are the rule and conflicts of interest prevail" ⁷, as well as the dissonance between relational and rule-based expectations ¹⁰ ⁷. Individual architects may vary in the degree of their conscious engagement in ethical practice, and the framework of other international codes may provide some pathways for this. Structuring a code as the ARB has done, offers a poster format with the core intentions, and then further discussion and specifics in subsequent sections. Combining this with the split between aspirational ethics, and disciplinary conduct standards, as does the Australian model code, may begin to approach a code (or set of codes) that could provide both ethical guidance for complex situations and rules of professional behaviour. Different situations do call for different responses, and architects should be supported by our code of ethics to navigate these tricky situations ¹².

The decisions of relationally autonomous moral agents are not made in isolation and disinterest ¹⁶, ³⁸. Situate a relationally autonomous moral agent within a pluralistic society and the judgements that the moral agent -the architect -needs to make, become unable to be reduced to a set of universal rules ⁷. Determining how to deal with complex and sometimes contra-indicated issues is part of an ethical practice ¹² ⁷, and it is arguably in that place of practice that professional ethics needs particular strengthening rather than simply in a written code ²⁴. ⁷ makes the case for the use of 'moral imagination' within architecture to aid in these judgements.

Architects are comfortable and confident at working with a range of components (services, structure, function, budget) that may have conflicting needs and priorities, and weaving them together to create a cohesive set that can be understood as a whole ¹². Held (2006) describes a design of feminist moral theory as being like a “stained glass window” with components from justice, utility, and virtue ethics situated within caring relations. “The whole should be harmonious, but that does not mean that the components cannot differ significantly.” ³⁸.

A new design for architects’ professional ethics should incorporate the five loci of relation within a broader ethical framework based in an ethics of care

Figure 7.Preliminary Schema for Proposed Loci of Relation in Professional Ethics

These five loci of relation would then be located within an over-arching philosophy of care and relation, as illustrated in preliminary form, in Figure 7. Building on Virginia Held’s proposition for an overall moral theory, each loci would incorporate ethical principles from te ao Māori, justice ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and further, as appropriate to the relevant relation.

4. Conclusion

The current New Zealand architects' code of ethics is incomplete, and serves to limit the responsibilities of architects to the measureable and the disciplinary. A more complete code of ethics, incorporating social and environmental relations, could equip and support architects to address both public good and environmental considerations, in addition to their professional and contractual obligations to Clients.

Appendix A - Architects’ Codes of Ethics/Conduct - Focus of Attention.
Code	General Professionalism			Responsibilities to Client			Responsibilities to Profession			Responsibilities to Society			Responsibilities for the Environment
NZRAB	5	2	Honesty, Fairness (2)	6	2	Act with Skill, Care, & Diligence (2)	4	1	Malicious Criticism (1)	1	1	Obligation to Report on Risk (1)	0	0
		1	Professional Judgement (1)		2	Conflicts of interest (2)		1	Must not misrepresent the status of employee (1)
		1	Misrepresentation (1)		2	Terms of Employment (2)		1	Conflicts of professional appointment (1)
		1	Abuse of Authority (1)		2	Communication (2)		2	Own merit; Acknowledge others (2)
		1	Competency (3)		2	Renumeration & Inducements (3)		1	Renumeration & Inducements (3)
		1	Uphold the Law (1)		2	Competency (3)
					1	Confidentiality (1)
ARB	2	2	Honesty, Integrity (4)	6	5	Trustworthy, Look after Client’s money (5)	2	4	Maintain architects’ reputation (5)	1	1	Discrimination/Respect for Others (1)	1	1	Consider Wider Impact (1)
		4	Insurance (4)		3	Faithful, Conscientious (4)		2	Co-operate with ARB (2)
		1	Competent (4)		3	Competent (4)
		1	Faithful, conscientious (4)		5	Honest, Responsible Self Promotion (5)
		1	Maintain architects’ reputation (5)		2	Honesty, Integrity (4)
					3	Deal with Disputes or Complaints Appropriately (3)
					6	Business competency (6)
AACA & RAIA	2	1	Demonstrate a consistent pattern of Care & Competency (1)	0			2	1	Endeavour to ensure that confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture is engendered. (1)	3	1	Fundamental & Over- riding obligation to serve and promote the public interest (1)	1	2	Contribute to quality and sustainability of natural and built environment (4)
		1	Professional Responsible Communication (1)					1	Responsibility to other Architects (1)		1	Must not Discriminate (1)
		1	Professional Responsible Communication (1)								2	Contribute to quality and sustainability of natural and built environment (4)

Appendix A.Appendix A - Architects’ Codes of Ethics/Conduct - Focus of Attention
Code	General Professionalism			Responsibilities to Client			Responsibilities to Profession			Responsibilities to Society			Responsibilities for the Environment
	9	1	Service & Conduct Standards: Integrity & Reasonable Care (1)	18	2	Service & Conduct Standards: Conflict of Interest (2)	9	2	Service & Conduct Standards: Withdraw from Services (3)	0	1	Service & Conduct Standards: Withdraw from Services (3)	0	0
		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Fairness & impartiality (1)		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Promptness (1)		1	Communication with the Public: Display Registration status / number (1)
		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Honest & Truthful opinions & public statements (1)		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Maintain documentation after completion of services (1)		1	Communication with the Public: Attribution (1)
		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Signing of Consent/Construction Documents (1)		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Services outside skill & competency (1)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: Dealings with Other Architects (1)
		1	Service & Conduct Standards: Misrepresentation (1)		3	Client Relationships: Provide information for decisions (3)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: Sustain confidence of the public (1)
		1	Insurance: Have & Maintain PI (1)		10	Client Relationships: Contract (10)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: promote the advancement of architecture (1)
		1	Continuing Professional Education: Maintain & Improve Skills (1)		1	Client Relationships: Thorough knowledge of services (1)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: Inform Client of their Obligations to Moral Rights (1)
		1	Communication with the Public: Qualifications, Experience, & Authorship (1)		1	Client Relationships: Inform Client of Decisions (1)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: Regard for Codes of Associated Professionals (1)
		1	Communication with the Public: Clear identification (1)		1	Client Relationships: Fair cost of services (1)		1	Obligations to Other Architects and to the Profession of Architecture: Conflicts of professional appointment (1)
					1	Client Relationships: Client confidentiality (1)
					1	Client Relationships: Inform Client of barriers to service (1)
					1	Client Relationships: Responsiveness (1)
					2	Client Relationships: Statements of Account / Deposits (2)
					1	Client Relationships: Architect in charge (1)
					1	Client Relationships: Client review of documents (1)
					6	Dispute Resolution: Provide for in Contract (6)
					1	Communication with the Public: Inducements (1)
					3	Communication with the Public: Renumeration (3)
	11			18			11			3			1
NCARB	2	1	Conflict of interest (5)	1	1	Competence (4)	1	1	Competency (4)	1	2	Compliance with Laws (5)	0	0
		2	Compliance with Laws (5)		3	Conflict of Interest (5)		1	Compliance with Laws (5)		2	Competence (4)
		3	Signing and Sealing (3)					6	Full Disclosure (9)
		3	Full Disclosure (9)					1	Conflict of interest (5)

Appenix A.Example caption for this image

Appendix A.

Appenix A.

References

Journal.
Baier A.. Trusting People. Philosophical Perspectives. 1992; 6:137-153.
Baier A.. What Emotions Are About. Philosophical Perspectives. 1990; 4:1-29.
Buckwalter W.. Theoretical Motivation of “Ought Implies Can. Philosophia. 2020; 48:83-94.
Chadha-Sridhar I.. Care as a Thick Ethical Concept. Res Publica. 2023; 1–19DOI
Cohen S., Fenster T.. Architecture of care: social architecture and feminist ethics. J Archit. 2021; 26:257-285.
Collier J.. The Art of Moral Imagination: Ethics in the Practice of Architecture. J. Bus. Ethics. 2006; 66:307-317.
Davion V.Autonomy. Integrity, and Care. Social Theory and Practice. 1993; 19:161-182.
Fernandez-Antolin M.-M., Río J.M.del, González-Lezcano R.A.. Building Performance Simulations and Architects against Climate Change and Energy Resource Scarcity. Earth. 2022; 3:31-44.
Gilligan C.. Revisiting “In a Different Voice. Learn. Landscapes. 2018; 11:25-30.
Hurk M.van den, Siemiatycki M.. Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building. Int J Urban Regional. 2018; 42:704-722.
Khoury K.B.. Ethics in Architecture Responsibilities and Moral Decisions in Sustainable Design. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics. 2021; 41–53DOI
Krasny E.C.A.R.E.. AA Files 38–39. 2019.
Larson M.S.. Sociol. Probl. e Práticas. 2018:27-42. DOI
MacKay K.Authenticity, Authority Normative. Addressing the Agency Dilemma with Values of One’s Own. J Soc Philos. 2020; 51:349-370.
Mackenzie C.Relational Autonomy. Normative Authority and Perfectionism. J Soc Philos. 2008; 39:512-533.
Marcuse P.. Professional Ethics and Beyond: Values in Planning. J. Am. Inst. Planners. 1976; 42:264-274.
Motta P.. Urbanization and Sustainability after the COVID-19 Pandemic. The International Journal of Social. 2020; Quality10:1-28.
O’Dowd O.. Caring-about” and the Problem of Overwhelming Obligations. Hypatia. 2016; 31:795-809.
Power E.R., Bergan T.L.. Care and Resistance to Neoliberal Reform in Social Housing. Hous Theory Soc. 2019; 36:426-447.
Puka B.. The Liberation of Caring; A Different Voice For Gilligan’s “Different Voice. Hypatia. 1990; 5:58-82.
Radford A.. Responsive cohesion as the foundational value in architecture. J Archit. 2009; 14:511-532.
Radzik L.. A Coherentist Theory of Normative Authority. J Ethics. 2002; 6:21-42.
Ray N.. Architectural ethics. Research Ethics Review. 2005; 1:67-72.
Sadri H.. Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards Humanity*. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 5:86-96.
Salloch S.. Same same but different: why we should care about the distinction between professionalism and ethics. BMC Méd. Ethics. 2016; 17
Sander‐Staudt M.. The Unhappy Marriage of Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Hypatia. 2006; 21:21-39.
Schindler S.Context. Community, and Capital: Keywords for the Architecture of Housing under Neoliberalism. Footprint. 2019; 13:55-72.
Seidel A.D., Kim J.T., Tanaka I.B.R.Architects. Urban Design, Health, and the Built Environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2012; 29:241-68.
Sorkin M.. The Architect’s Dilemma: When to Say No. Architectural Record. 2014; 202(6)
Spector T.. Publicness as an architectural value. J Archit Urbanism. 2014; 38:180-186.
Waldon J.. Rights in Conflict. Ethics. 1989; 99:503-519.
Wickersham J.. From Disinterested Expert to Marketplace Competitor: How Anti-Monopoly Law Transformed the Ethics and Economics of American Architecture in the 1970s. Archit. Theory Rev. 2015; 20:138-158.
Alexander Larry, Moore Michael. Deontological Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2021. Publisher Full Text
Driver Julia. The History of Utilitarianism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. Publisher Full Text
Fisher T.. Princeton Architectural Press; 2010.
Held V.. The Ethics of Care - Personal, Political, and Global.
Hankivsky O.. Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2014; 108:252-264.
Hursthouse Rosalind, Pettigrove Glen. Virtue Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. Publisher Full Text
Kekes J.. Encyclopedia of ethics. 2001. Publisher Full Text
Varden Helga. Caring for Liberalism: Dependency and Political Theory. 50-74. Publisher Full Text
Wolff J.. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. 2021.
American Institute of Architects (AIA), Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2020.
Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) & Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), Architects’ Model Statutory Code of Professional Standards and Conduct. 2003.
European Deontological Code; 2018.
Board Architects’ Registration. The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice. 2017.
Engineering New Zealand Institute of Engineering Professionals (IEP) Code of Ethical Conduct. 2016.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), Model Rules of Conduct. 2018.
New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA), Guide to Architects’ Services.
New Zealand Government, Building (Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners. Order. 2021.
New Zealand Government, Cabinet Office Circular: Policy Framework for Occupational Regulation. 1999.
New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Act. 2005.
New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Rules. 2006.
New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB), Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects. 2018.
Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Occupational regulation reforms in the building and construction sector. 2023.
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Code of Professional Conduct. 2004.

Plum Analytics

Read Counter : 3251 Download : 1414

Share Now

[BIBR-1] Journal.

[BIBR-2] Baier A.. Trusting People. Philosophical Perspectives. 1992; 6:137-153.

[BIBR-3] Baier A.. What Emotions Are About. Philosophical Perspectives. 1990; 4:1-29.

[BIBR-4] Buckwalter W.. Theoretical Motivation of “Ought Implies Can. Philosophia. 2020; 48:83-94.

[BIBR-5] Chadha-Sridhar I.. Care as a Thick Ethical Concept. Res Publica. 2023; 1–19DOI

[BIBR-6] Cohen S., Fenster T.. Architecture of care: social architecture and feminist ethics. J Archit. 2021; 26:257-285.

[BIBR-7] Collier J.. The Art of Moral Imagination: Ethics in the Practice of Architecture. J. Bus. Ethics. 2006; 66:307-317.

[BIBR-8] Davion V.Autonomy. Integrity, and Care. Social Theory and Practice. 1993; 19:161-182.

[BIBR-9] Fernandez-Antolin M.-M., Río J.M.del, González-Lezcano R.A.. Building Performance Simulations and Architects against Climate Change and Energy Resource Scarcity. Earth. 2022; 3:31-44.

[BIBR-10] Gilligan C.. Revisiting “In a Different Voice. Learn. Landscapes. 2018; 11:25-30.

[BIBR-11] Hurk M.van den, Siemiatycki M.. Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building. Int J Urban Regional. 2018; 42:704-722.

[BIBR-12] Khoury K.B.. Ethics in Architecture Responsibilities and Moral Decisions in Sustainable Design. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics. 2021; 41–53DOI

[BIBR-13] Krasny E.C.A.R.E.. AA Files 38–39. 2019.

[BIBR-14] Larson M.S.. Sociol. Probl. e Práticas. 2018:27-42. DOI

[BIBR-15] MacKay K.Authenticity, Authority Normative. Addressing the Agency Dilemma with Values of One’s Own. J Soc Philos. 2020; 51:349-370.

[BIBR-16] Mackenzie C.Relational Autonomy. Normative Authority and Perfectionism. J Soc Philos. 2008; 39:512-533.

[BIBR-17] Marcuse P.. Professional Ethics and Beyond: Values in Planning. J. Am. Inst. Planners. 1976; 42:264-274.

[BIBR-18] Motta P.. Urbanization and Sustainability after the COVID-19 Pandemic. The International Journal of Social. 2020; Quality10:1-28.

[BIBR-19] O’Dowd O.. Caring-about” and the Problem of Overwhelming Obligations. Hypatia. 2016; 31:795-809.

[BIBR-20] Power E.R., Bergan T.L.. Care and Resistance to Neoliberal Reform in Social Housing. Hous Theory Soc. 2019; 36:426-447.

[BIBR-21] Puka B.. The Liberation of Caring; A Different Voice For Gilligan’s “Different Voice. Hypatia. 1990; 5:58-82.

[BIBR-22] Radford A.. Responsive cohesion as the foundational value in architecture. J Archit. 2009; 14:511-532.

[BIBR-23] Radzik L.. A Coherentist Theory of Normative Authority. J Ethics. 2002; 6:21-42.

[BIBR-24] Ray N.. Architectural ethics. Research Ethics Review. 2005; 1:67-72.

[BIBR-25] Sadri H.. Professional Ethics in Architecture and Responsibilities of Architects towards Humanity*. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 5:86-96.

[BIBR-26] Salloch S.. Same same but different: why we should care about the distinction between professionalism and ethics. BMC Méd. Ethics. 2016; 17

[BIBR-27] Sander‐Staudt M.. The Unhappy Marriage of Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Hypatia. 2006; 21:21-39.

[BIBR-28] Schindler S.Context. Community, and Capital: Keywords for the Architecture of Housing under Neoliberalism. Footprint. 2019; 13:55-72.

[BIBR-29] Seidel A.D., Kim J.T., Tanaka I.B.R.Architects. Urban Design, Health, and the Built Environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2012; 29:241-68.

[BIBR-30] Sorkin M.. The Architect’s Dilemma: When to Say No. Architectural Record. 2014; 202(6)

[BIBR-31] Spector T.. Publicness as an architectural value. J Archit Urbanism. 2014; 38:180-186.

[BIBR-32] Waldon J.. Rights in Conflict. Ethics. 1989; 99:503-519.

[BIBR-33] Wickersham J.. From Disinterested Expert to Marketplace Competitor: How Anti-Monopoly Law Transformed the Ethics and Economics of American Architecture in the 1970s. Archit. Theory Rev. 2015; 20:138-158.

[BIBR-35] Alexander Larry, Moore Michael. Deontological Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2021. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-36] Driver Julia. The History of Utilitarianism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-37] Fisher T.. Princeton Architectural Press; 2010.

[BIBR-38] Held V.. The Ethics of Care - Personal, Political, and Global.

[BIBR-39] Hankivsky O.. Rethinking Care Ethics: On the Promise and Potential of an Intersectional Analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2014; 108:252-264.

[BIBR-40] Hursthouse Rosalind, Pettigrove Glen. Virtue Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-41] Kekes J.. Encyclopedia of ethics. 2001. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-42] Varden Helga. Caring for Liberalism: Dependency and Political Theory. 50-74. Publisher Full Text

[BIBR-43] Wolff J.. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. 2021.

[BIBR-45] American Institute of Architects (AIA), Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2020.

[BIBR-46] Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) & Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), Architects’ Model Statutory Code of Professional Standards and Conduct. 2003.

[BIBR-47] European Deontological Code; 2018.

[BIBR-48] Board Architects’ Registration. The Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice. 2017.

[BIBR-49] Engineering New Zealand Institute of Engineering Professionals (IEP) Code of Ethical Conduct. 2016.

[BIBR-50] National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), Model Rules of Conduct. 2018.

[BIBR-51] New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA), Guide to Architects’ Services.

[BIBR-52] New Zealand Government, Building (Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners. Order. 2021.

[BIBR-53] New Zealand Government, Cabinet Office Circular: Policy Framework for Occupational Regulation. 1999.

[BIBR-54] New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Act. 2005.

[BIBR-55] New Zealand Government, Registered Architects Rules. 2006.

[BIBR-56] New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB), Code of Minimum Standards of Ethical Conduct for Registered Architects. 2018.

[BIBR-57] Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Occupational regulation reforms in the building and construction sector. 2023.

[BIBR-58] Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Code of Professional Conduct. 2004.

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Article Details