Architecture and morality

Henryk part of the twentieth

century) this system of
Skolhnozvski values is based on the
technological imperative:
what technology makes
possible the architect
AN OVERVIEW OF must implement; new
THE Situation technological possibilities
become our ethical
Architecture has always imperatives. Not to obey
operated within a technology is to betray
framework pervaded by progress. To betray
values, and thus is related progress is considered a
to and controlled by a moral sin.
form Of morality. The It is quite clear that
tenets and principles of historically architecture
this morality are usually has been a conveyor and
implicit and not perpetuator of values.
infrequently controls Architects understand this
and co-ordinates the very well with regard to
architect's mind. Thus traditional architecture.
architecture can be They can talk eloquently
of how the Parthenon
seen as the arena for
expresses and embodies
the struggle Of values.
the ethos and values of
But not only
the Greek culture, or how
architecture. Every the Gothic cathedral
practical act is a moral epitomizes our quest for
act. We may say further transcendence and our
that no human activity god-centred values.
is neutral. When However, architects by
performed within a and large claim to be
given environment and innocent and unknowing
about the values which
placed in specific social
impregnate modern
and economic contexts, architecture (or let us be
practical acts are specific — twentieth
inevitably translated century architecture). This
into moral acts. At the innocence is partly a ploy.
very least the acts are Architects, in a sense,
pregnant with moral refuse to see the moral
and social consequences
consequences.
Of their designs and
In traditional cultures buildings. They say that if
the underlying value modern architecture is a
system within which mess — from the
the architect acts is environmental and social
rooted in intrinsic point of view — they (the
values which are often architects) are not
religious in Character. responsible: politicians
are responsible and
In the twentieth
society is responsible
century (at least the early
 because they forced
architects to design and
build in a certain way.
For some reasons.
architects have
considerable difficulties in
seeing and understanding
that they have aligned
themselves with wrong
values (or, shall we say,
one-sided technological
values) which are anti-
human, cold, alienating,
geared to industrial
efficiency and not to
values, they at least allowed
themselves to be used as
perpetrators of these values.
Hence the tragedy of modern
architecture. Hence the
acrimony of present
discussions concerning the
meaning and value of modern
architecture.
When I was a research
student at Oxford, in the early
1960s. a lively controversy took
place concerning the future of
Christ Church Meadows. The
‘authorities' wanted to build a
bypass through these meadows
another motorway. Christ
Church College fiercely
objected on aesthetic and
historic grounds. In the name
of progress Christ Church dons
were abused as antediluvian
reactionaries. The college,
which had a lot of clout. finally
prevailed. Now everybody is
happy that a monstrosity was
not built so close to historic
Oxford colleges.
Times have changed. but
architects are still stuck in
the old technological morals
and values. They are still
reluctant to see how much
damage they have made in
the name of progress. Even
today. they defend
themselves by saying, if we
didn't do it, someone else
would. Indeed I have heard
architects referring to
themselves as ‘hired guns'. If
there is anything morally
wrong with architecture, this
is certainly wrong.
THE ETHICAL IMPERATIVES
FOR OUR TIMES
Let us now look in a more
analytical manner at the
various ways in which moral
responsibility enters
architecture. Morality or
ethics enters the realm of
architecture on at least four
different levels. Some of these
levels are obvious, some are
more subtle and hidden. To
each of these levels there
corresponds an ethical
responsibility which the
architect must maintain in
order to be a moral agent.
Even if the architect does not
want to be a moral agent, he
or she is one through the
consequences of his or her
actions. Here are four
different moral
responsibilities.
corresponding to various
levels Of the architect's
action.
1 Integrity or professional
integrity.
2 Sensitivity or the capacity
to read in depth the
client's needs and desires.
3 A larger sense of life to
which the architect
positively contributes.
4 An ecological awareness
which is now absolutely
crucial for designing with
nature and for taking
these responsibility for
future generations.
Thus, on the first level. morality
enters the realm Of
architecture in the form of
the architect's integrity in
his or her daily professional
conduct. Architecture is an
complex craft and there are
myriad ways in which the
architect's integrity is put to
test. The practice is immoral If
the architect cuts corners.
produces shoddy design and
buildings, while the client
expect otherwise. The client
is the innocent. while the
architect retains power and
can subtly manipulate the
client in so many ways
This aspect of morality
in architecture is clearly
perceived and looked after
by professional codes and
professional responsibilities.
Yet no code can envisage all
possible ways the architect
can cheat — even if in small,
invisible ways. Therefore
what is finally at stake is the
architect's integrity. Integrity
in this context is a
moral category. In the What If we find that our
simplest way integrity means: Client is bit vulgar. a bit
we trust this person to do the
Ostentatious, a bit stupid. Do
job well.
On the second level.
morality enters the realm of
architecture in the form Of the
architect's sensitivity to the
client's brief. This is specifically
the architectural
domain: to understand the
client's brief well, to
understand the client's needs
and desiderata completely, to
design with the eve to the
client's benefit. this is a
subtle and often deep art — to
elicit from the client what his
or her deeper needs are. Many
architects are quite sensitive
in this way. one might even
say extraordinarily sensitive.
Yet there are some deeper
problems here.
How much should the
architect listen to the client
and attempt to meet the
client's needs, wants, whims?
All the way through, some
would say; after all, the client
pays and we are here to serve.
But is that right? Is that
morally right? Are we not
bypassing too easily some
moral dilemmas?
the problem lies exactly in
the very meaning of the
term 'serve'. Should we limit
the meaning of the idea of
'service' only to the client
who pays? Or should we not
at the same time consider
(while serving the individual
Client) whether we should
also serve a larger client,
that is, society and the
whole cultural heritage of
human kind? This is by no
means an abstract question.
Let us consider some
examples
we simply design to
accommodate the client's
nature? is that all there is to
the architect's sensitivity and
responsibility? Just to flatter
and please the client
regardless of how mediocre
(and perhaps vulgar) his or
her taste is? What if our
limited in its vision and a bit
stupid? Might it not be the
case that the present
conseumerist society -as a whole-
is of this Kind,and therefore
catering to its tastes and e
Predilections might not be the
best way to serve it. That is,if i
we want to serve it in a s
enlightened way? I
s
What is vulgar and what is
not is open to debate. Some t
would say.Everything is o
open to debate,if we to
make it so. I rather like d
e
Anthony Burgess's definition
b
of vulgarity. The a
distinguished writer, after s
twenty-one years of living e
abroad. returned to Britain for
a longer spell of time and h
found it to be a land of ‘New i
m
Vulgaria'. Vulgarity, he writes,
.
'is a kind of implied philosophy
To treat man as he ought to be
which finds virtue in reduction Is to engrace him.
— the reduction of man, a (Goethe 1940: 459)
noble animal. to a set Of
homuncular tehat it Could be ln. these simple but profound
is tvhat vulgarity is about' words we have a guide to
action and a key as to how to
(Burgess 1989, my italics). This
treat the client.
last statement provides us
I have deliberately
with an vulgarity is a moral
enlarged the scope of
problem; indeed, it is a moral sin.
the discourse concerning
The problem, of course, is
the meaning of
a philosophical one: whom
‘serving the client
do we consider the human
person to be? Let us hear
well', and concerning the
the poet Goethe on the meaning Of ‘sensitivities
subject. required to serve the
client well', because too
T often this discourse is
o too narrowly conceived.
The moral dilemmas
t occur exactly at the point
r where we realize that
e our client is not a pre-
a packaged box of needs
t which we are merely
unpacking, but that our
m client is a person
a steeped in the history of
n human culture and a
part Of the evolving
a tapestry of evolution. If
s our sensitivities fail to
appreciate that, then we
h are catering to an
isolated human monad, r
perhaps evcn to a one- d
dimensional individual.
Our failure is then a t
moral failure — to treat o
the human person
according to his or her d
deepest nature and e
within the extraordinary f
richness of human i
heritage. We should be n
mindful that no one is an e
island. .
We have now
imperceptibly moved s
from level two h
(sensitivity to the need o
of a particular client) to w
level three — the sense n
of the largeness of life.
i
In summary.
n
comprehend in depth h
the client's desires. But it i
must also be universal s
enough to comprehend cycle (1970. We can
in depth the rote of thc assess quality.
architect in contributing particularly in
to society. to human architecture. hoc, only
history, to the well-being a posteriori.
Of the species. As we
judge past architecture 498 Appreciation of
by its enduring qualities, architecture
so we shall be judged by
future generations. interactions which we
The enduring quality of deem to be life-
past architecture has to do enhancing, then we judge
with the way it serves life. tile building or the built
Quality of life is the test environment as a success.
The quality-of-life
pass sooner or later. The
criterion thus meets the
quality of life criterion is an
tribunal of life in the
elusive one — very difficult
actual act of living over a
to formulate. But not so
period Of time.' To be a
good architect is to listen
to the pulse of life and to
i respond to it. sense Of
s largeness of life is
great were people did
v
not hide
c
r
y behind the screen of
h relativism. for they kncw
a what the standards were and
were the values they wished
to realize.
Nor is relativism defensible in
our times — particularly With
the appreciation Of its quality, Of
its Inexorable and relentless beat
Of life, in spite of its
colltradict101ns.
One of the aspects of the
quality of life which archilecture
must address is to know when to
regard to architecture. There is
nothing rela-
tive (or better still. relativistic)
about integrity. about sensitiv;ty2
about the sense Of the largeness
of life,
the principle of reverence for life.
If architects became fully
conscious of this principle and
tried to implement it in their
practice and in their built
environments, we would have
stopped the violence which we
inflict upon nature. and we might

build and when not to build. The have created an architecture

tragedy of the technological worthy of the human being.
society is not that it did not create a noble animal — as Burgess
enough great buildings but that it says.
has left behind too many shoddy,
useless, offensive
buildings. Louis Kahn put the
matter with an admirable clarity
when he said: 'The right thing
badly done is always better than
the wrong thing well done' (Kalm
1986). The moral failure of
modern architecture was to
confuse the excellence of means
with the excellence of ends.
Quality-of-life architecture does
not signify superior technical
means for the execution of
spurious building.2
Thus we come to level four.
ecological awareness
or stewardship, which
is nowadays of vital
about the meaning of ecological
stewardship All these basic
ccncepts (really moral principles
for architects) may be difficult to
define. But that is another matter.
All Important moral concepts are
difficult to define. But this
difficulty cannot be our escape
hatch from responsibilitv.
One of the most beautiful
ethical concepts is that of
reverence for life. It is in fact the
underlying pillar of my ecological
ethics which I have formulated
elsewhe.•e.a The four principles
which I have analysed actually
follow from and are justified by
ecological importance to which all traditional,
architectural thinking and especially absolutist,
practice. This aspect of Standards have
architecture — the moral disappeared, and
responsibility for the therefore anything goes.
Shape of the Relativism is thus a
environment — is so vital consequence of
that all other abolishing all absolute
achievements pale if we creeds and
destroy the environment values.
or damage it beyond From a moral point of
repair. The moral view, relativism is not a
responsibility for the position but a surrender
quality Of built of moral responsibility. In
environments is difficult fact,
to assess with regard to relativism is a cheap
particular device of confused
buildings minds. This may sound
Architects share :his harsh. But it may not be
responsibility jointly. They far from the truth. Ours is
face the tribunal of life over an age of confusion. And
o period of thne. relativism thrives amidst
confusion. Relativism is,
When architects were
in fact, a pseudo-
taken to task in Britain by
philosophical stand
the Prince
justifying confusion. In all
Of Wales
great periods of history.
(in the late 1980s) for
In my earlier writings.' I
creating inhuman
proposed that instead of the
environments. the charge
was moral and ecological. totally inadequate principle.
And the two are now •form follows function', we now
intimately and use a new one — •Forni Follows
inextricably connected. Culture'. I would be inclined to
ecological awareness. the reformulate this tc read • Fornr
sense of ecological Follows Life', that is, a
stewardship, must now reverential conception of life.
become a part of the In summary, architecture
architect's craft and an is part of the moral order of
inherent aspect of the the human universe. It does
architectural morality. not make explicit judge ments
about how human beings
ought to behave. But it is a
ON RELATIVISM conveyor and perpetuator of
AND REVERENCE the moral orders of
humanity. It contributes to
FOR LIFE these orders, usually, by
There is one more implementing values
problem that we need to specific to a given society or
discuss. namely culture. These specific values
relativism — in concern the ideal of
architecture and
•good life'. Good life is finally
elsewhere.
justified in relation to the
We are often told that we
idea of quality of life. If
live in a pluralistic
architecture does not
society, in the age in
positively contribute to 'good
life'. to the life of quality, it
looses its raison d'étre.
The architect cannot be a
naive simpleton who assumes
that he or she is merely a
servant and must do what a
client or a social group orders.
architect is a servant. We are all
servants. But the architect is a
servant in many contexts Of
which he or she must be
aware. The architect is a servant
to and a perpetuator Of the
great traditions of human
culture which, by evolving
various architectural orders, has
enshrined the beauty of the
human condition. The architect
is a servant to and a
preserver of the integrity of
ecological habitats, for if
ecological habitats are
destroyed, and our planet is
reduced to a rubbish heap, we
can hardly talk about
architecture contributing to a
•good life'.
Ihus the concept of 'good life'
must include the capacity Of
to celebrate life, to
contribute to the elevation of the
human condition. to this rare joy
and
experience when we
contemplate
wonderful piece of
architecture. whether
big or small and arc in awc
of thc creative poicntial of
the human
contemporary architecture.
which are especially relevant
to twenty-first-century
architecture. These
commandments could be
expressed as follows.
1 Thou shalt not violate the
sanctity of the Human
Person by reducing that
person to a thoughtless
consumer.
2 Thou shatt not violate the
integrity of nature and its
cycles by overusing it and
reducing it to a mere
resource.
3 Ihou shalt not waste
energy. resources. space
or any aspect of •this
divine universe, for waste
is now a moral sin. Ours
must be the ethics of
frugality — for the sake
of future generations.
Architecture and morality 499
which I have advocated in this
essay — may be difficult to
achieve. But as Baruch
Spinoza says. all things rare
and beautiful are difficult to
attain.

Although one does not

wish to be moralistic. onc
should realize that some
clear-cut commandments
follow from our discourse on
the practice of

NOTES
Sec Skolimowski 1981. Chaptcr 4:
'Architccturc and cco•
philosophy'. and my other
writings on architccturc.
3 For a philosophical analysis
of thc idea of •sensitivity•
and its implications see
Skolimowski 1985. cspccially
the catly chapters.
4 scc cspccially Skolimowski
1984 and 1990.
5 Sec. for example.
Skolimowski 1981, Chapter 4.
6 Scen in the light Of thcsc
criteria (commandments).
PostModcrn architccturc —
With its bizarre facades and
lack of substance — is but a
scrics of immoral doodlings.
REFERENCES
Burgcss. A. (1989) •Voyagc to
discovery in thc New Vulgaria responsibility without which
% Observer. 6 August. the architect cannot build
Gocthe, J.W. von (1940) Wilhelm
Mcistcrs Lehrjahrc,. Leipzig: Inscl
Verlag.
Kahn. Ll. (1986) What Will Be Has
Always Bart: Tllc Words cf
Pirsig. R.M. (1974) Zen and the
Art Of Motorcycle
Maintenance. London:
Bantam.
Skolimowski (1981) Eco-
philosophy: Desisning Ncto
Tactics for Living. London:
Marion Boyars.
(1984a) The Theatre of the
Mind, Wheaton, . Quest Books.
(1984b) 'Eco-cthics as thc
foun4ation of conservation'.
The Environmentalist 1
(1990) •Rcvcrcncc for fifc•. in
R. and J. Engel (cds) Ethics of
1 Thou shalt possess an
elevated view of-the
human condition and of
the human destiny. for
only then can one design
in the image of
Reverential Human.ö
As we have said throughout
this essay, it is difficult to
appraise architecture
morally, point by point,
building by building. The
moral appraisal of archi.•ccturc
is the tribunal of life itt the long
run. For this reason it is a
moral prerogative of the
architect to possess the sense
of the largeness of life. By
his or her very mission, the
architect contributes to life at
large.
TO flow with lifé and to
feel its unique pulse is a
mandate and a
truly responsibly, or achieve
greatness. This sense of the
largeness of life cannot be
iearncd from technical books
but can be acquired by the
contemplation of the great
works of architecture and art.
and through the
contemplation of the beauty
of the human condition.
Environment and Development:
Global Challenge and
international Response. London:

Bclhavcn Press.