As designers, we often pride ourselves on creating work that makes the world a better place. But what happens when our personal morals clash with the needs of our clients? This was the central question I explored in my essay, “Assessing the Designer’s Morality.”

The Initial Experiment

Earlier this year, a family friend approached me for a branding project. Usually, I would jump at the chance, but this time I hesitated. The client’s concepts and intentions made me uncomfortable. This experience led to an intriguing self-experiment: “Make something you morally disagree with.” Despite my efforts, the project quickly became unproductive, and the client decided to find someone more invested. This failure sparked further questions about morality in the design industry.

Understanding Morality

To navigate this complex issue, I delved into both psychological and philosophical perspectives on human morality. Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism suggests that actions are morally correct if they produce the greatest pleasure for the most people. However, this theory often neglects minorities and can oversimplify moral dilemmas.

In contrast, Immanuel Kant’s deontological approach emphasizes duty and fixed moral laws, regardless of outcomes. While compelling, it can be rigid and impractical in real-world scenarios.

Jonathan Haidt’s social psychology offers a more nuanced view, comparing moral judgment to an elephant and its rider—where emotions (the elephant) often guide our decisions, and reasoning (the rider) justifies them after the fact.

The Designer’s Morality

Applying Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, I identified five core virtues: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. These virtues shape our moral compass and, by extension, our design choices.

1. Care: This virtue emphasizes nurturing and protection. In design, it translates to warm, calming colors and organic shapes, appealing to our natural empathy.
2. Fairness: Equality and justice are central here. Clear, simple visuals and straightforward typography reflect this virtue’s pragmatic nature.
3. Loyalty: Loyalty values group cohesion and duty. Exclusive, centralized designs with a strong sense of belonging often appeal to this virtue.
4. Authority: This foundation respects social hierarchies. Bold, dominant visuals and symmetrical designs convey strength and leadership.
5. Sanctity: Purity and cleanliness are key. Light colors, ample white space, and refined aesthetics evoke a sense of spiritual and physical cleanliness.

The KISD Study

To understand how these virtues manifest in designers, I conducted a study at the Köln International School of Design (KISD). Unsurprisingly, the majority of participants prioritized Care and Fairness, aligning with left-liberal ideologies. This homogeneity in moral foundations suggests that designers, like myself, are more inclined to work with clients who share similar values.

Figure 1: The most prominent moral virute and its connected political idiology umong KISD students and educators

The Implications

This preference for certain moral foundations raises critical questions about the exclusivity of design services. Are we, as designers, only improving the world for people who think like us? Do industries perceived as immoral, like the sex industry or firearm manufacturing, suffer from lower design quality due to a lack of willing designers?

Conclusion

My journey from a failed self-experiment to a deeper understanding of designer morality highlights a significant challenge in our industry. As designers, we must navigate our moral beliefs and professional responsibilities carefully. While we aim to make the world a better place, we must also recognize the diversity of values and needs in our society. Only then can we truly fulfill our role as designers.