Planning Ethics

Planners approach ethics in different ways. Howe analyses two categories of normative ethics: utilitarianism and deontological. Utilitarianism focuses on the goodness of consequences in deciding what is right. Deontological focuses on rules, rights, actions that are right in themselves. As neither of these approaches is full satisfactory by itself, others have been developed to deal with particular weaknesses. These alternative approaches are re-utilitarianism and intuitionism. Under this ethical umbrella, the main approaches to ethics in planning are: subjective, which considers ethics a matter of choice; pluralist, which is based on a set of principles that serves as the basis for all people in need for planning services; objective, which is an attempt to establish formal standards for ethical judgments; egalitarian, which uses similar objective standards but focusing on justice; process, which sees the purpose of planning as contributing to a particular process such as mutual learning; and structural, which views ethics in terms of historically defined structural conditions, evaluating actions as systems. Utilitarianism can be egoistic, altruistic, or universalistic. Egoistic is concerned with consequences to one’s self only. Altruistic is concerned only with what will affect others. Universalistic is concerned with benefits to everyone. The problem is that each can justify its position but neither can convince the other. The main problem of utilitarian ethics is its inability to adequately take into account collective goods and the collective nature of society. Deontological has less influence in planning than utilitarianism. The objective of deontological ethics is to establish formal objective standards for ethical judgement. It is not concerned with consequences but with actions themselves. The positive aspect of deontological ethics is that it may help deal with the issues that utilitarianism stumbles over such as the sacrifice of a particular individual in order to improve the chances that a policy would be adopted. Deontological ethics is based on Kant’s categorical imperative which claimed that we should “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” It is concerned about the bonds of social cooperation. It distinguishes between acting out of prudence -- self-interest -- or inclination and acting out of duty or the will to do right. It focuses on dignity and autonomy by assuming that free riders reduce other’s ability to act freely, right. Kant emphasis is on rules and principles but it is too rigid in his views and is not concerned enough with the consequences of actions. Other theories are concerned with the consequences of actions. Act-consequentialism focuses on consequences of actions by giving flexibility to self-interest. The problem is that it is unable to deal with problems of collective goods. Rule deontology places high value on the worth and autonomy of human beings. It provides strong rules concerned with collective goods and the rights and duties arising from them. The problem is that it is too inflexible or too little concerned with policy outcomes.

Rule-utilitarianism arises because of the discomfort over the flexibility of utilitarianism. It assumes that the principle of utility is applied to rules rather than to individual acts. It creates stable rules and institutions for conducting our everyday lives. The problem is that it is still less successful in dealing with collective goods because it uses the consequences of universalizing the maxim or principle of the act as the test of righting like “the tragedy of the commons”. Others approaches are act-deontology, which accepts exceptions in Kant’s ethics; intuitionism, which assumes that no higher-order principles for determining which principle should precede to each individual must choose for each case what seems to be right by his/her own intuition. The problem is that no guidance is provided about how to choose. Codes of ethics is a way to deal with lack of guidance by accepting the idea that codes generally serve two somewhat incompatible purposes – one is to state ideas and the other is to guide actual behavior.

Planners should take some ethical consideration before making a decision. Bolan says that the three questions that planners should ask themselves are: “Who are we responsible to?”, “What is it that our responsibility obliged us to do?”, “Under which circumstances are we responsible?”. These questions cannot be taken separately. Responsibility extends to those who lived in the past, those who are now alive but not within our general sphere of activity, and those yet unborn. Planners should pay attention to background awareness of received ideals and norms by reflecting the notions of good and rules of conduct. Planners should be aware of situations that demand actions, a decision to be made because decision is not conclusion but a reflection of circumstances.

Decision making in planning involves different ethical considerations. Beatley talks about anthropocentric and biocentric ethics and their categories. Under anthropocentric theory one finds resource libertarian, which sees the environment as a collection of proprietary resources but it fails to acknowledge the inherently public nature of the environment; the utilitarian, which assumes that it is ethically correct those decisions about the natural environment which serve to maximize human benefits -- the problem here is the difficulty to place quantitative process on all elements of the environment; the environmental rights, which claims that all human beings have certain environmental entitlements guaranteed by virtue of their humanity but whose problem is defining what extent of these rights are, and whether they can legitimately vary from localities; and future generations, which fulfils the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. The difficulty of this consideration is determining even what the current generation needs, never mind what future generations will desire. Biocentric views are ecocentrism, which places life at the center of ethical universe but policy makers remain unconvinced about the intrinsic value and inherent worth of nature; deep ecology; which creates a fundamental identification with nature but the whose feasibility seems unrealistic because one needs to assume that many individuals will be able to achieve the deeper ecological desire; and eco-feminism, which contends that much of the destructive and exploitative relationship we have had towards the natural world is the result of androcentric values assuming that a male-dominated world negated much of the feminists’ progress in asserting individual right and identity. Anthropocentric and biocentric both agree on protecting the ecosystem is morally requisite.

American Planning Association (APA) Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct is helpful but also has limitations. This APA document derives from special responsibilities of planners to serve the public interest with integrity and is divided into four sections: aspirational principles, rules of conduct, procedural provisions, and procedural provisions for serious crimes. The objective is to build better and more inclusive communities. The principles are: responsibility to the public, to clients and employers, and to professional colleagues. The rules of conduct are about information provision, not accepting assignments, private communication, special advantages, coercion, and trustee. Procedural provisions describe the way that one may obtain either a formal or informal advisory ethics ruling by detailing how a charge of misconduct can be filed, and how charges are investigated, prosecuted, and adjudicated. APA codes of conduct is positive because it provides a guide line on how planners should behave, functions as an ethical platform for actions, and protect the professional class. The limitations are the lack of a judiciary able to judge this professional behavior in order to undertake corrective measures, the establishment of a power hierarchical structure in planning, and regulation and moralism detached from reality because strictly value-based.

Campbell defines “situated ethical judgment” and reflects whether it is useful or not. Situated ethical judgement is a conceptualization of justice related to the understanding of justice through underlying and competing values and raises significant issues to future developments in planning thought. “Questions of value are an inescapable part of the activity of planning.” It helps reconceptualize the notion of justice for planning. Two key themes are the relationship between the individual and the collective and the notion of “reasonableness” in relation to matters of public policy related to planning. It makes consideration on the scope of collective obligations and the nature of judgment and reasoning in planning. Justice in planning is about appropriate relationships and interrelations between individuals, communities, governments, markets, and the natural environment. Justice is a subset of public policy. It assumes that collective intervention, particularly in land and property markets, will yield benefits to the common good by constraining, restricting, and raising questions about individual property rights and freedoms. Baum says that planning is about “extraordinary behavior” – “if people recognized the virtues of planning, planners would not be necessary.” Justice, within the dominant liberal conceptions, is premised in the maintenance of the liberty of the individual. It is not possible to achieve justice where citizens lack freedom and autonomy.

Rawl’s justice is equal liberty. Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties. Liberty could be limited for the sake of liberty and to be safeguarded through a comprehensive system of rights. Rawl defends collective liberty. In this context, planning matters in the nature of complex and problematic interests. Individuals generally both desire clean air and to be able to drive their cars freely. This places planning in a precarious position and the solution is showing that space is a place for action where individuals are seen as part of a larger whole and in relation to one another. The maintenance of liberty and autonomy depends on interdependent individuals and mutually beneficial relational webs. The notion of rights is linked to individual liberty and autonomy in the context of justice. Critics say that it forces passivity since main preoccupation becomes “What I ought to get?”. The next focus then should be on wider responsibilities, collective actions since free speech is only meaningful if others listen or are open at least to considering the views put forward. The state has the obligation to provide shelter and so to curtail freedom in one area to create greater freedom elsewhere. Crucial issue about justice in planning opposes libertarians against social justice (rights and obligations). Libertarians defend an obligation not to interfere leading to gated communities. Social justice supporters claim that rights to goods and services are moral rights to be concerned for the poor, needy, and vulnerable. “Planning is concerned with making choices about better and worse with respect to specific contexts. It is about more particularly collective action, based on an understanding of the relational nature of human existence.”

APA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
Howe, E. "Normative Ethics in Planning", 1994
Bolan, R. "The structure of ethical choice in planning", 1985
Beatley, T. "Environmental Ethics", 1994
Campbell, H. "Just planning", 2006