Solution-3678 Environmental Ethics in Built Environment Assgn 1

Department of Home & Health Sciences
Block No. 06, Sector H-8,

Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
Environmental Ethics in the Built (3678)

Assignment No. 01
Submitted to:
Muhammad Adil Rauf
Block No: 6
Dept. of Home & Health Sciences,
Allama Iqbal Open University, Sector H-8,
ISLAMABAD, (0335-5660090)
Submitted by:
Muhammad Hammad Manzoor
2nd Semester, Roll No. BN-523998
M. Sc Sustainable Environmental Design
OGIL, # 514, 5th Floor, Continental Trade Centre (CTC)
Block – 08, Clifton, KARACHI
explorationist@gmail.com / (0332-527 2364)
Environmental Ethics in the built (3678)
Q. No. 1: Explain the Islamic perspective with reference to Environmental

conservation and preservation of natural environment. (15 Marks)
Answer)
ISLAM:
Shahadah Prayer Fasting Zakat Hajj

(Faith)
Only one Allah Thanks Allah Self reflection Charity Cleanse
Submission Seeking help Improvement Social inclusion Purification
Recognition Respect & love Jamma
Responsibility
• Accountability – Judgement day

• Submission , Surrender
• Love and respect
• Honesty - Sacrifice
• Shariah – Ethical System and legal framework
• Principle of analogy – Comparing – linking present issue with Hadith
• Ijmah – Collective decision on a point of law
Islam & Environment Protection:

The Islamic perspective on the environment rests on the belief that Allah is the Creator &
Sustainer of the universe. The whole universe along with all of its factors has been created
with perfect wisdom (hikmah). The number, quantity, and quality of these factors is
precisely determined by the divine plan. Each factor plays its ordained role. Everything
created by Allah has a just purpose which must be fulfilled. The Holy Quran, shedding light
on this point, says:
“We created not the heavens and the earth and all between them but for just ends, and for
a term appointed: but those who reject Faith turn away from that whereof they are warned.”
(Quran: 46:3)
For the sustenance of His creation, Allah has placed a measured quantity of the
environmental resources which matches the total demand of the resources in the universe.
This implies the existence of environmental balance in the natural ecosystem. Hence, Islam
looks at the environment from the standpoint of balance.
The Quran describes the notion of environmental balance in various terms like ‘adl’, ‘qadar’
and ‘mouzoon’. ‘adl’ literally means acting justly, rightly, or equitably. ‘qadar’ is a specified
measure or amount either of quantities or qualities. This term corroborates the notion of
balance in the following ayah:
“Verily all things We have created in proportion and measure.” (Quran: 54:59)
2
By: M. Hammad Manzoor, M.Sc Sus. Env. Design, 514, 5th Floor, Continental Trade Centre (CTC), Clifton – 08, Karachi. (Roll No. BN-523998)
The above ayah makes a general statement about the existence of equilibrium in
everything. The process of creation & growth of all things follows the principle of balance.
The term ‘mouzoon’ this occurs in the first of the following ayahs:
“And the earth We have spread out, set therein mountains firm and immovable and roduced
therein all kinds of things in due balance. And We have provided therein means of
sustenance for you and for those whose sustenance you are not responsible.” (Quran, 15:
19-20)
According to above ayahs, all kinds of provisions have been made for the sustenance of
human and the non-human beings in a way that the quantity demanded of these provisions
equals their supply. There is no question of relative shortage or surplus in the divine plan
regulating these provisions.
• “If a Muslim plants a tree or sows seeds, and then a bird, or a person or an animal eats
from it, it is regarded as a charitable gift (sadaqah) for him.” (Bukhari)
• The Prophet said, “Don’t waste water, even if you are at a flowing river.
• “Beware of the three acts that cause you to be cursed: relieving yourselves in shaded
places (that people utilize), in a walkway or in a watering place.” (Ranked
sound, hasan, by Al-Albani)
• “Removing harmful things from the road is an act of charity (sadaqah).” (Authenticated
by Al-Albani
Nature is a ‘Gift of God’:

There are more than 750 verses in the Quran that are related to nature. It is said that nature
is indeed a bounty of Allah that makes the humanity and all other living organisms survive
in the earth.
“And He has made subservient to you, (as a gift) from Himself, all that is in the heavens and
on earth: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think!” (Quran, 45:13)
3
Water:
In Islamic culture, water is very highly regarded. The word maa’ (water) is used in the
Qur’an about 60 times. Water is introduced as the origin and the source of life. For
example, the Qur’an says:
“And We have made of water everything living” (Quran, 21:30)
The Qur’an also states that, “God created from water every animal that goes on its belly, on
two legs and on four legs. Water is pure and purifying” (Quran, 25:48).
Earth:
Every Muslim in his ritual prayer has to prostrate to God several times on the earth. In
Islamic scriptures, the earth is introduced as an origin for the creation of human beings.
The Qur’an says:

“From it (earth) We created you and into it We shall send you back and from it We will raise
you a second time”. (Quran, 20:55)
Likewise, the earth is introduced as ‘a mother’ for human beings. The Holy Prophet is
quoted as saying: Preserve the earth because it is your mother’.
Deforestation:
Islam is against the cutting or destruction of plants & trees unnecessarily as is evident in the
following Hadith: Abdullah ibn Habashi reported that Prophet Muhammad said: "He who
cuts a lote-tree [without justification], Allah will send him to Hellfire."
Islam highly recommends planting trees and urges people to protect them to the extent that
planting a tree is considered as an act of worship, for which special prayer is
recommended. The Holy Prophet said: ‘Unless you are compelled, do not cut down a tree!
Preservation of Water:
Water is a huge life-providing theme in the Quran. God talks about how He creates life
through water then sustains it by streams, the rains, rivers and oceans that are homes for
so many creatures. "And Allah has sent down rain from the sky and given life thereby to the
earth after its lifelessness. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who listen." (Quran, 16:65)
Preservation of Animals/Species:
"And there is no creature on (or within) the earth or a bird that flies with its wings except
that they are nations (communities) like you." (Quran, 6:38)
This quranic verse says that all living things are partners to man in existence and they
deserve our respect. We must be merciful toward animals and strive to ensure the
preservation of different species.
Al-akhira (Hereafter):
Al-akhirais one of the fundamental beliefs of Islam. It implies Islamic doctrine of
accountability. A Muslim has to believe that every atom’s weight of good and every atom’s
weight of evil will be weighed in al-akhira. This belief broadens his vision. He evaluates the
likely impact of his worldly choices on his life in the Hereafter before making decisions.
Practically, this belief acts as a monitoring system inside the mind and heart of a Muslim
and thus helps him to do good deeds and avoid bad deeds.
4
These are explained in Quran: 99:7, 45:15, 53:31 verses. An Islamic society, therefore,
produces environmental-friendly behavior which is quite helpful for maintaining the
environmental balance.
Anti-Corruption:
Corruptions are of many types- Crime, political fraud, illegal banking systems, theft, rape.
Sound pretty major don't they. Now add to that list littering, deforestation, toxic waste and
pesticides. Sure, these are hardly equivalent to murdering but in the long run, these things
take human lives too, a fact. That is what the Qur'an is alarming readers about.
"...And do not desire corruption in the land. Indeed, God does not like corruptors. " (Quran
28:77)
"Eat& drink from the provision of Allah And do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading
corruption." (Quran, 2:60)
Thus, Allah has stated that He made all the material objects on earth for man’s use, not for
his abuse.
Poverty alleviation:
Various scientific studies have established that poverty & environmental degradation are
directly proportional to each other. Hence, ending poverty is essential for environment
protection. In Islam charity is prioritized to the neediest and the closest.
"And you do not encourage one another to feed the poor." (Quran, 89:18)
"No! But you do not honour the orphan." (Quran, 89:17)
Simplicity:
Simplicity is an important feature of Islamic life having far reaching implications for the
environmental balance. The Holy Quran has ordained such a life by proscribing
extravagance.
It says: “Do not be extravagant, surely Allah does not like extravagant. (Quran, 6:141)
The environmental implications of simple living are significantly favorable. These
implications occur by 2 ways.
(i) Reduced input demand for the natural resources due to the reduced consumption of
the final goods. Consequently, a substantial amount of saving of the natural
resources takes place which tends to augment the existing supply of these
resources.
(ii) (ii) It controls the quantity of waste material which occurs as a result of reduced
consumption. The smaller amount of waste material reduces the scope for bacterial
exposure. This helps improve health conditions and also saves substantial amount
of expenditure incurred on recycling and garbage disposal. Both of these channels
thus generate favorable implications for the environmental balance.
5
Preservation, not Profligation:

Protecting the environment from detriments of all kinds and preserving the nature is the
philosophy of Islamic environmentalism. Being the trustee of the nature, this is humans
duty to take care of environmental sustainability. Along with proper care of environment,
Islam also cautions not to be profligate and wasteful. Allah gives order to humankind:
“O Children of Adam! Beautify yourselves for every act of worship, and eat and drink
[freely], but do not waste: verily, He does not love the wasteful!” (Quran, 7:31)
Environment, in Islamic worldview is a ‘gift of God’ to mankind. Islam is a universal religion

and its concern for the environment is a universal one, cutting across national, religious and
geographical barriers. Its major commandments are directed, not to the Muslims alone, but
to the human race.
Hence in the question of conserving the natural resources the Almighty Allah’s decree is
enforced upon ‘people’ rather than to Arab or Muslims alone. The environmental worldview
in Islam is a holistic one. These Islamic values can be very helpful for ensuring environment
protection.
6
Q. No. 2: Describe briefly the principles of Environmental Ethics. How they relate
to the Built Environment? Explain with examples from your observation in your own
community. (15 Marks)
Answer)
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS:
Justice and Sustainability:

The classic formal principle of justice is that equals should be treated equally unless there
is a sufficient reason to treat anyone (or anything)unequally. It is clearly relevant in the field
of ethics called Environmental Justice ,but this principle cuts across many issues.
Environmental justice is concerned with the inequitable access to environmental resources
(clean food, air and water).
Sustainability extends justice into the future. Sustainability can be defined as meeting the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to
meet their own needs. We are consuming or degrading many resources (such as fossil fuel
energy, topsoil and water) today faster than they can be naturally replenished, which means
they will not be available to people in the future. The ethical principle of justice is at play
because it underpins the need to equitably balance the needs of those alive today (the rich
and poor) with future generations.
SUFFICIENCY AND COMPASSION

The principle of sufficiency mandates that all forms of life are entitled toenough goods to
live on and flourish. The principle also means no one should waste or hoard resources
intended for the sufficiency of all.
Compassion extends the notion of sufficiency to the Earth. Environmental ethics asserts
that other animals, plants, and the elements (such as water, soil or air) are morally
significant, and that humans have responsibilities to act so that their needs are met too.
Some environmental ethicists, such as Deep Ecologists ,assert that non-human forms of
life have moral significance equivalent to humans.
SOLIDARITY AND PARTICIPATION

The principle of solidarity invites us to consider how we relate to each other in community. It
assumes that we recognize that we are a part of at least one family - our biological family,
our local community, or our national community - but then challenges us to consider the full
range of relationships with others.
In a globalizing economy, we participate in a vast, international economic community, one

in which goods and services are provided for us by those on the other side of the world.
Solidarity requires us to consider this kind of extended community, and to act in such a way
that reflects concern for the well-being of others Participation extends the idea of solidarity
to make it practical.
The demands of solidarity point us to the principle of participation, so that those affected by
an environmental decision can shape how it is made. Many, many environmental problems
stem from decisions being made by private individuals or companies that have wide-
ranging implications. In some cases, in this country and others, governments make
7
environmental decisions without fully securing the consent of the public. Often, those most
affected are unaware of the decisions or the long-term effects on their health and the well-
being of their environment. The ethical principle of participation requires us to recognize all
of the parties - human and non-human - likely to be affected by a decision, and to recognize
that all parties should have a say in how the decision is made.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
In social science, the term built environment, or built world, refers to the human-made
surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging in scale from buildings to
parks. It has been defined as "the human-made space in which people live, work, and
recreate on a day-to-day basis." The "built environment encompasses places and spaces
created or modified by people including buildings, parks, and transportation systems."
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN BUILD ENVIRONMENT:

Environmental Ethics Definition
Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of
human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its
nonhuman contents. -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The definition of environmental ethics rests on the principle that there is an ethical
relationship between human beings and the natural environment. Human beings are a part
of the environment and so are the other living beings. When we talk about the philosophical
principle that guides our life, we often ignore the fact that even plants and animals are a
part of our lives.
They are an integral part of the environment and hence cannot be denied their right to live.
Since they are an inseparable part of nature and closely associated with our living, the
guiding principles of our life and our ethical values should include them. They need to be
considered as entities with the right to co-exist with human beings.
Concept
The concept of environmental ethics brings out the fact that all the life forms on Earth have
the right to live. By destroying nature, we are denying the life forms this right. This act is
unjust and unethical. The food web clearly indicates that human beings, plants, animals,
and other natural resources are closely linked with each other. All of us are creations of
nature and we depend on one another and the environment. Respecting the existence of
not just other humans but also the non-human entities, and recognizing their right to live is
our primary duty. With environmental ethics, morality extends to the non-human world.
ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Consumption of Natural Resources
Our natural environment is not a storehouse to rob resources from. It is a reserve of
resources that are crucial to the existence of life. Their unscrupulous depletion is
detrimental to our well-being. We are cutting down forests for making our homes. Our
excessive consumption of natural resources continues. The undue use of resources is
resulting in their depletion, risking the life of our future generations. Is this ethical? This is
an environmental ethics issue.
8
Destruction of Forests
When industrial processes lead to destruction of resources, is it not the industry's
responsibility to restore the depleted resources? Moreover, can a restored environment
make up for the original one? Mining processes disrupt the ecological balance in certain
areas. They harm the plant and animal life in those regions. Slash-and-burn techniques are
used for clearing land that leads to the destruction of forests and woodland. The land is
used for agriculture, but is the loss of so many trees compensated for.
Environmental Pollution
Many human activities lead to environmental pollution. The rising human population is
increasing the demand for nature's resources. As the population is exceeding the carrying
capacity of our planet, animal and plant habitats are being destroyed to make space for
human habitation. Huge constructions (roads and buildings for residential and industrial
use) are being made at the cost of the environment. To allow space for these constructions,
so many trees have to lose their lives. The animals that thrive in them lose their natural
habitats and eventually their lives. However, the cutting down of trees is seldom even
considered as loss of lives. Isn't this unethical?
Harm to Animals
Due to habitat loss, animals may enter human settlements, thus posing a threat to the
people living there. In some cases, these animals are killed. Secondly, animals serve as
food sources of humans, for which they are killed. Also, animal studies cause harm to
animals and even their deaths. This destruction has led to the extinction of many animal
species. The reduction in the populations of several other animal species continues. How
can we deny the animals their right to live? How are we right in depriving them of their
habitat and food? Who gave us the right to harm them for our convenience? These are
some of the ethical environmental issues that need to be addressed.
THE INHERENT VALUE OF NON-HUMAN ENTITIES
Instrumental Value
An important point that the field of environmental ethics is concerned with, is whether non-
human beings only have an instrumental value or whether they also have an intrinsic value.
Aristotle said that "nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man", which
means non-human beings only have an instrumental value; they are meant to serve as
'instruments' for human beings.
From an anthropocentric point of view (which lays emphasis on human beings), the use of
other living elements in nature by humans is only right. Causing them harm or destroying
them is wrong only because it eventually affects human life. With this view, cruelty to
animals is wrong because it develops insensitivity, and not because animals should not be
harmed. Or the felling of trees is wrong because it eventually causes loss of food sources
for humans, and not because it is simply unethical.
Intrinsic Value
Historian Lynn White Jr. published an essay in 1967, in which he criticized Judeo-Christian
thinking as being a primary factor that led human beings to exploit the environment.
According to this line of thinking, man is supreme and the nature has been created for him,
which gives him the right to exploit it. White also criticized the Church Fathers who
maintained that God created man in his own image and gave him the right to rule every
9
being on Earth. According to White, this view promotes the idea that man is separate from
nature and not a part of it. This thought leads human beings to exploit nature without
realizing its intrinsic value.
Our Moral Responsibility

Another important point in relation to environmental ethics is of our moral responsibility to
preserve nature for our future generations. By causing environmental degradation and
depletion of resources, we are risking the lives of future generations. Is it not our duty to
leave a good environment for them to live in? Non-renewable energy resources are fast-
depleting and sadly, it isn't possible to replenish them. This means, they may not be
available for the future generations. We need to strike a balance between our needs and
the availability of resources, so that the forthcoming generations are also able to benefit
from their use.
We are morally obliged to consider the needs of even the other elements of our
environment. They include not just other human beings, but also plants and animals. It is
only ethical to be fair to these elements and make a responsible use of natural resources.
Environmental ethics try to answer the question of whether human beings have any moral
obligation towards the non-human entities in nature.
For the sake of development and convenience, is it morally right to burn fuels though
pollution is caused? Is it morally right to continue with technological advances at the cost of
the environment? Climate change is known to have a negative impact on plant diversity. It
is a fact that the increasing pollution levels are hazardous for not only humans but also for
plants and animals. Given this, isn't it our moral responsibility to protect the environment?
We have certain duties towards the environment. Our approach towards other living entities
should be based on strong ethical values.
Even if the human race is considered as the main constituent of the environment, animals
and plants are in no way less important. They have a right to get a fair share of resources
and lead a safe life.
10
Q. No. 3: How Ethical concerns relate to Global warming and Buildings?

Elaborate in the local context. (15 Marks)
Answer)
Global Warming is an Ethical Issue

"Ethics" is a word that does not usually get the blood flowing. It calls up images of Aristotle,
schoolteachers, hearings where political leaders weakly defend their honor after having
done something foolish that everyone else understands to be wrong.
But global warming is undeniably an ethical issue, and we must face it as such. That means
asking hard questions about responsibility, accountability, and the differences between
actions - whether political, economic, or wholly personal - that are right versus those that
are wrong.
Ethics and Global Climate Change
Any action on climate change confronts serious ethical issues of fairness and responsibility
across individuals, nations, generations, and the rest of nature.
Climate change is one of the most challenging issues facing the world today. Here we
illustrate how ethical analysis can help us to understand both the nature of the climate
problem and constraints on possible solutions (Vanderheiden 2008, Gardiner et al. 2010,
Arnold 2011). In doing so, we will focus on how climate change threatens fundamental
values, and how action to address it raises serious concerns of fairness and responsibility.
Climate Change as a Challenge to Ethical Action

Climate change has been described as a "perfect moral storm" because it brings together
three major challenges to ethical action in a mutually reinforcing way (Gardiner 2011a). The
first challenge stems from the fact that climate change is a truly global phenomenon. Once
emitted, greenhouse gas emissions can have climate effects anywhere on the planet,
regardless of their source (IPCC 2007). This is often said to result in a prisoner's dilemma
or tragedy of the commons structure played out between nation states: although
collectively all countries would prefer to limit global emissions so as to reduce the risk of
11
severe or catastrophic impacts, when acting individually, each still prefers to continue
emitting unimpeded (e.g., Soroos 1997, Helm 2008, but see Gardiner 2011a). At the same
time, there are skewed vulnerabilities: at least in the short- to medium-term, many of the
most vulnerable countries and people are those who have emitted the least historically, and
whose emissions levels continue to be relatively low. This appears to be seriously unfair
and casts a notable shadow over both practical and theoretical efforts to secure global
cooperation.
"Climate change presents a perfect moral storm because of the mutually reinforcing
challenges it poses."
Higher levels of GHG emissions correlate with higher future global average surface
temperatures, though warming will not be evenly distributed.
12
This poses challenges of skewed vulnerabilities and intergenerational ethics, among other
things. To minimize the harmfulness of climate change, emissions should be significantly
reduced as soon as possible, and most authors agree that this burden should fall primarily
on developed countries (at least initially)
Higher levels of GHG emissions correlate with higher future global average surface
temperatures, though warming will not be evenly distributed.
This poses challenges of skewed vulnerabilities and intergenerational ethics, among other
things. To minimize the harmfulness of climate change, emissions should be significantly
reduced as soon as possible, and most authors agree that this burden should fall primarily
on developed countries (at least initially)
The second challenge is that current emissions have profoundly intergenerational effects.
Emissions of the most prominent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, typically persist in the
atmosphere for a long time, contributing to negative climate impacts for centuries, or even
millennia (IPCC 2007). This too seems unfair, especially if future negative impacts are
severe and cumulative.
In addition, the temporal diffusion of climate change gives rise to an ethical collective action
problem that is even more challenging than the traditional tragedy of the commons both in
its shape and because normal kinds of cooperation do not seem to be possible across
generations.
The third challenge to ethical action is that our theoretical tools are underdeveloped in
many of the relevant areas, such as international justice, intergenerational ethics,
scientific uncertainty, and the appropriate relationship between humans and the rest of
nature (e.g., Jamieson 1992).
For example, climate change raises questions about the (moral) value of nonhuman nature,
such as whether we have obligations to protect nonhuman animals, unique places, or
nature as a whole, and what form such obligations take if we do (see, e.g., Jamieson 2003,
Palmer 2011).
In addition, the presence of scientific uncertainty and the potential for catastrophic
outcomes put internal pressure on the standard economic approach to environmental
problems (e.g., Sagoff 2007, Stern 2007, Gardiner 2011a), and play a role in arguments for
a precautionary approach in environmental law and policy that some see as an alternative
(see, e.g., Sunstein 2005, Whiteside 2006).
13
Climate change raises serious questions about how we should relate

to nonhuman animals and the rest of nature.
The global and intergenerational dimensions of the perfect moral storm provide serious
temptations for those in the current generation who contribute heavily to climate change to
pass most of the burden of their activities on to people in other parts of the world and the
future in unfair ways. In particular, the complexity of the ethical and scientific terrain may
make us susceptible to arguments for inaction (or inappropriate action) that shroud
themselves in moral language but which are actually weak and self-deceptive.
Unfortunately, there is some evidence for this in the ongoing political inertia in developing a
robust global regime.
This suggests the need for work in moral and political philosophy that exposes inadequate
rationales and articulates compelling reasons as to how and why we should address
climate change. Such work can help preserve and extend the limited progress currently
being made and reinforce arguments against those who have failed to deliver on their
promises to reduce emissions and contribute to adaptation funds (e.g., Brown 2002).
14
Climate change will likely have harmful unavoidable impacts. Much more work needs to be
done to determine how such impacts should be addressed and who ought to bear
responsibility for the costs of adaptive measures.
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE
Trajectory of Future Emissions

While it seems clear that we, as a generation, have serious responsibilities not to inflict
severe climate damages on the future, determining the more precise trajectory of future
emissions requires more thought about global, intergenerational, and ecological justice.
As an illustration, consider three issues.
1- Future Generations
First, from the perspective of future generations and some vulnerable species it would
probably be better if emissions were substantially reduced quickly, so as to minimize future
climate damages. However, this may be costly for the current generation while having only
minimal benefits for them, which may seem unfair.
Second, poorer people and nations who have not emitted very much thus far may believe it
unfair to demand that they minimize their emissions for the sake of future generations,
especially if future people are likely to be better off, and if many present high emitters are
already much richer than the future poor are likely to be (e.g., Posner & Weisbach 2010,
Harris 2010).
Third, climate change threatens nonhuman animals and nature in potentially devastating
ways. For example, we may have an immediate obligation to protect coral reefs to preserve
biodiversity, fragile and unique ecosystems and the sentient beings living in such reefs.
However, over the long term, climate change will also bring new species into existence and
change ecosystems around the world. It is unclear how we should understand our
responsibilities in light of such changes (e.g., Palmer 2011).
The future trajectory concern is currently theoretically underexplored. Public debate tends
to focus on quantitative targets, such as 2˚C or 350ppm. However, specific quantitative
targets require further ethical defense in light of issues such as those raised above, and so
are likely to come under increasing philosophical pressure if and when the world moves
towards serious action.
2- Allocating emissions at a particular time

Significantly more philosophical attention has been devoted to the question of how to
allocate fairly whatever total global emissions are allowable at a particular time under an
appropriate long-term trajectory. As it turns out, most writers agree that developed countries
should shoulder most of the burden (at least initially), such that they should be permitted
fewer emissions than developing countries (e.g., Shue 1999, Singer 2002). This consensus
rests on a number of distinct but overlapping justifications. Historical accounts of justice
support it because developed countries are causally responsible for most of the cumulative
emissions that are currently contributing to climate change.
15
Views that emphasize moral equality support it because developed countries continue to
emit much more per capita than developing countries. Those that prioritize aiding the least
well-off endorse the consensus because developed countries are much richer on average,
and so more able to bear the burden of reducing emissions. Finally, utilitarian views support
it because it seems that better outcomes will be achieved if the global poor are able to meet
their subsistence needs and to move out of poverty through a larger share of allowable
emissions, than if the "luxury emissions" of wealthier countries are protected. It has even
been argued that there are good utilitarian reasons for supporting the other approaches to
justice in this case, as secondary rules that promote utility (Singer 2002).
Unavoided Impacts
A third issue for addressing climate change concerns un avoided impacts. Given the
inertia in the climate system, we are already committed to some, potentially serious,
negative impacts (IPCC 2007). Presumably, the harmfulness of some of these can be
minimized through adaptation (e.g., migrating vulnerable populations as sea levels rise).
However, some harmful impacts are likely to be unavoidable, and may just have to be
endured (e.g., increased storm intensity and habitat destruction). Both kinds of cases raise
questions about who should bear the burdens (e.g., of financing the adaptation in the first,
or compensating those harmed in the second) (Adger et al. 2005). Such issues, like the first
two considered, involve complex questions of global, intergenerational, and ecological
justice.
Of course, an entirely different way to address impacts that are already in the pipeline
would be to intentionally manipulate (i.e., engage in geo engineering of) the global climate
with the aim of minimizing such impacts. For example, it has been suggested that
temperature rises might be offset by injecting sulfur into the stratosphere so as to reflect
more incoming solar radiation back to space. Such proposals raise a wide range of ethical
issues that are just beginning to be taken up in the literature (e.g., Jamieson 1996, Gardiner
2011a, 2011b).
Individual Responsibility
Thus far the discussion has focused on how climate change should be addressed from a
collective perspective, but what, if any, responsibilities do individuals have with respect to
climate change? At one extreme, some argue that the responsibilities of individuals are
primarily political, and that they have little or no obligation to change their consumption or
lifestyle choices (Sinnott-Armstrong 2005); at the other, some maintain that individuals
ought take responsibility for their personal choices and develop a set of "green virtues" that
are not contingent on how others respond (Jamieson 2007). Part of the problem that this
debate wrestles with is that one person's emissions seem very small in comparison with the
global total, and as such unlikely to harm anyone considered in isolation.
However, recently, this assumption has been challenged by an argument that claims that,
on average and over the course of a lifetime, the emissions of a single typical American are
significant enough to contribute to the severe suffering and/or deaths of two future people
(Nolt 2011). The theoretical debate about individual responsibility is in its infancy, but is
likely to heat up as more philosophers devote attention to this issue.
16
Ethical Issues in the Construction Industry

The construction industry is classified as the most fraudulent industry worldwide
(Transparency International, 2005) providing the perfect environment for ethical dilemmas,
with its low-price mentality, fierce competition and paper-thin margins (FMI, 2004). This
industry is considered to be one of the most susceptible to unethical practices because it
involves substantial capital investments, providing large scale opportunities for rent
extraction as well as investments that usually cannot be redeployed after implementation.
Unethical practices can take place at every phase of a construction project – during
planning and design, pre-qualification and tender, project execution and operation and
maintenance. Such practices can result in projects which when completed are considered
unnecessary, unsuitable, overlay complex components, overpriced or delayed (Hamzah et
al, 2008).
Unfair conduct
Unfair conduct may occur in competition (unfair competition), in contracts (unfair contract
terms), in staff promotion/dismissal/demotion (unfair labor practices) and in business
practices (unfair business practice). For example, the following features of unfair conduct
are been noted (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997):
Little or no ability to negotiate terms of the contract (pro forma ‘take it or leave it’ contracts
are used) x
• Inadequate disclosure of relevant and important commercial information which the
weaker party should be aware of before entering the transaction.
• Inadequate and unclear disclosure of important terms of the contract, particularly

those which weighted against the weaker party
• The dominant parties seek to vary the nature of a long – term relationship so that it is
more favorable to them but which affects the viability of the weaker party
• When disputes do arise there is often no quick, cheap and market – sensitive way of
settling them and, even where such interventions do exist, there is a reluctance by
weaker parties to access any remedial action through fear of reprisal.
Conflict of interest
This is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician
or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional or personal
interests which could make it difficult to fulfil his or her duties impartially. Even if there is
no evidence of improper action, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of
impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly in
his/her position. Conflict of interest involves a personal interpretation of whether or not
certain behavior is commonly acceptable, rather than if it is illegal.
The onus should clearly be placed upon individuals to declare all possible instances of
potential negative interpretation, before proceeding with projects.
17
Fraud and bribery

Fraud and bribery are forms of corruption. Amundsen (2000) distinguished between
political and bureaucratic corruption, ‘individual’ and ‘collective’ forms of corruption, and
corruption as a mechanism of either ‘upward extraction’ or ‘downward redistribution’.
The main forms of corruption identified are bribery, embezzlement, fraud and extortion.
The construction industry plays an important role in the economic contribution for the
development of the country. To obtain optimal benefits from the industry and ensure the
smooth functioning of the industry itself, good ethical practices are vital. Despite the
innovations and advanced technology that has taken place in the industry, good ethical
practices by the players in the industry are crucial for its growth. Professional institutions
and government agencies play a crucial role in minimizing ethical lapses in the
construction industry.
18
Q. No. 4: How values and value judgment formulate the conceptual basis of
building Ethics? (15 Marks)
Answer)
VALUE SYSTEMS: THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF BUILDING ETHICS
More so than knowledge and technology, it is individual, professional and societal value
systems that essentially determine numerous aspects of the process and product of
building. Such systems form the fundamental background of the ethical attitudes that
parties involved in building assume. Despite their importance in the formation of building,
however, there appears to be no well-established, coherent and systematic framework for
analyses of value related issues in building.
The nature of building(s) and people’s attitudes regarding them are determined by two main
types of factors: environmental and cultural. Among the latter, ethical predicates are
probably the most influential. This is so not only because they determine how buildings are
evaluated by people but also because they form the basic precepts through which
professionals act in designing and constructing them and through which resources are
allocated to it in competition with other socio-economic needs.
Values in Ethics
If ethical considerations in building are to be of any operational consequence at all, we
need to develop an approach different from traditional discussions in philosophy and social
science, and work from a scientific understanding of ethics. One such approach, which will
form the basis of the discussion in this paper, views ethics as the science of oughtness. A
foremost proponent of this approach, Bahm, claims that “the most basic problem facing
ethics as a pure science is understanding the nature of oughtness” (Bahm 1994).
He goes on to state that the nature of rightness and wrongness, obligation and duty, codes,
standards, norms, mores and laws are all related to oughtness, but that they are mere
synonyms for it. As the fundamental notion in a study of ethics he regards values: “Fully
adequate understanding of oughtness and rightness involves understanding values” (Bahm
1994).
Bahm proposes, “as essential to ethics, some principles for choosing ... [which] will seem
self-evident. All of them can be tested by rigorous examination. All of them presuppose that
persons have values ... and that at least some of these values can be known and
considered in making right and wrong choices” (1994).
The said principles consist of the choice of a good over a bad, of greater good over a lesser
good, and of a lesser bad over a greater bad. By reference to a continuous scale of
goodness, these principles can be consolidated into a single one, namely the choice of a
greater good over a lesser good.
Values and Value Judgments in Building

Whether building values are intrinsic or extrinsic in character, or are means or ends values
is not of great importance unless these values have been identified and denominated in the
first place. A convenient route for identification would be to consider the kind of human
needs that they are related to. From this viewpoint, values that affect the nature and
19
outcome of human activities may be classified under three general categories: technical,
socio-cultural and percepto-cognitional.
Technical values are related to the satisfaction of non-human requirements, as well as

biological and bio-social human needs. Three generic values in this context are reliability,
efficiency and compatibility. Reliability is associated with the probability that a problem
solution will perform its function satisfactorily.
In the building context, reliability may be interpreted, for example, to mean the probability
that a building will provide the necessary meso-environmental conditions. Efficiency
concerns the ratio of the utility obtained to the amount of the resources supplied. In
building, efficiency measures may be such quantities as amount of useful space or quality
obtained per unit of investment, or the efficiency of the heating system provided.
Compatibility is a value related to the inverse of the degree of conflict that the solution
implemented will create with people, and other entities in the environment. A foremost
example of technical compatibility is safety.
Also affecting the formation and perception of the built environment are percepto-
cognitional values, among which may be mentioned the generic values of evocativeness,
dishabituality and mastery. Evocativeness is a measure of the extent to which the senses,
emotions and intellect of observers and users are invoked. For example, such evocation
may consist in giving an impression of magnanimity or historical continuity, or invoking
feelings of homely coziness or community.
Dishabituality is a measure of the novelty and the unfamiliarity of the solution. In building
this might correspond to the provision of novel spaces, vistas that people are
unaccustomed to and novel uses of materials and other architectural elements. Mastery
comprises qualities that are conveyed by formal aesthetic characteristics such the unity of
the design, the refinement in details, the degree of perfection attained in design and
construction.
Another problem relates to the fact that it is not only building, the product, but the whole of
the building activity that constitutes the subject area of building values. Although it will not
be possible to enumerate these values here, the short list below will serve to illustrate their
diverse nature:
• The intrinsic values of the building product, such as compatibility with the physical
and mental health of the occupants (Cf. Day).
• The means value of the social organization through which the planning has been
achieved, such as a participatory process.
• The extent of the discourse that a building has generated in architectural circles.
• The extrinsic value of compatibility with the topography and climate of the
environment.
• The innovatively of the techniques used in the construction.
• The appropriateness of the spatial solution vis a vis the cultural value systems of
the occupants.
• The means value of the attitudes of building professionals (Cf. Manheim).
20
Value judgments in building are formed mainly through the accretion of successful
professional examples and the practice of criticism. They are transferred throughout the
building professions through education, professional guidance and control, and through
society by enculturation. Parallel to cultural phenomena, value judgments vary through
time and in space. Whereas judgments related to technical values have a tendency to
remain fairly constant, other values judgments change more often and are variable from
group to group, and society to society.
Explicitly stated value judgments are encountered in the clauses of professional

standards, building codes and other codes of practice. Ordinarily, such clauses are not
interpreted as value judgments, but they are, nevertheless, totally consistent with the
understanding of value judgment provided above. Such value judgments rarely create
much disagreement.
Much more controversial, however, are socio-cultural and percepto-cognitional value

judgments not laid down in an explicit manner but rather carried implicitly by
professionals in their individual style of practice. Attention must also be drawn to the fact
that many values in building, in addition to not having clearly defined descriptors, have
value judgments associated with them implicitly. The designation of such values
incorporates their goodness gradation, often in binary form. Values commonly used in
architectural criticism such as creativity, sensitivity, perceptivity, boldness, and brilliance
are examples of such values.
21
Q. No. 5: What are the Ethical problems in Architecture? How would you address
them? (10 Marks)
Answer)
Philosophy of Architecture:
Central issues include foundational matters regarding the nature of:
1. Architecture as an art form, design medium or other product or practice.

2. Architectural objects—what sorts of things they are; how they differ from other sorts
of objects; and how we define the range of such objects.
3. Special architectural properties, like the standard trio of structural integrity (firmitas),
beauty, and utility—or space, light, and form; and ways they might be special to
architecture.
4. Architectural types—how to consider abstract groups of architectural objects and
their instances.
5. Meaning and other language-like phenomena in architecture and its objects.
6. Formation of and warrant for our basic grasp, and considered judgment, of
architectural objects.
7. Social and moral features of architectural objects and architectural practice.
Ethical Problems in Architecture & their Solutions:
Some problems of architectural ethics are characteristic of a range of typical moral

dilemmas—agent-centered, norms-oriented concerns—as may arise for architects. In
addition to a traditional set of questions applied to the architectural domain, architectural
ethics also addresses problems special to the discipline and practice—as shaped by its
social, public, practical, and artistic nature.
As conceptually prior to a normative ethics of architectural practice, a meta-ethics of
architecture assesses alternate ethical modalities, such as whether architecture might be
considered moral or immoral relative to its objects (built structures) or to its practices as a
set of institutions or social phenomena. Another meta-ethical issue concerns whether
moralism or autonomism best characterizes the relationship of aesthetics to ethics, as that
plays out in architecture.
Ethical modalities of architecture. There are three typical candidate modalities of ethics
in architecture. For one, there is the establishment of criteria for ethical norms of the
enterprise such as architects in practice may observe. For example, architects can craft
designs in ways that lower the likelihood of cost overruns and enhance safety. In an
interpersonal vein, architects can represent their work honestly to clients or contractors.
Another modality—beyond enterprise-defined ethical norms—is pursuit of criteria to gauge
architects as moral agents broadly producing or doing good or bad in the world. For
example, architects may create objects that uplift or constrain individual users and
inhabitants; other architects may promote social utility by designing housing for those in
need of shelter. Finally, there is the modality of seeking criteria to judge architectural
objects as morally good or bad insofar as they directly produce pleasure or pain. As
an indirect example, a hospital design is intended to facilitate the minimizing of pain, by
fostering environmental conditions conducive to excellence in health care and patient well-
being. As a more direct case, a bus shelter is intended to reduce exposure to the elements
22
and corresponding discomfort. This last candidate may be attractive if we see architecture
primarily as a product rather than as a practice; it is noxious if we are unwilling to assign
moral values to artifacts as we do to actions or their properties. A built structure might be
inhumane in that it is bleak or uninhabitable, though it does not follow that the structure
itself bears inhumane values.
Value Interaction. Vitruvian principles underlying much of architectural theory suggest a
tendency to link the aesthetic and the utility-promoting. So, too, functional beauty theory
recommends that aesthetic and ethical considerations are linked in architecture. To
crystallize the matter, we may ask if it is possible for a built structure to be good though not
aesthetically so. The question as to how aesthetic and ethical value might be related is a
subject of broader concern, with a “moralist” stance that says the two sorts of value are or
should be connected (Carroll 1996, Gaut 1998) and an “autonomist” stance that takes the
two as (or better off as) independent (Anderson and Dean 1998, Kieran 2001).
In this debate, architecture would seem a promising domain in which to find robust
relations. At a moralist extreme, there is the suggestion—supported by some traditions in
architectural theory (Pugin 1841, Ruskin 1849)—that aesthetic tasks in architecture
simply are ethical tasks, reflecting ethical choices. One prominent moralist perspective
locates the ethical element of aesthetic architectural choice in obligations to a sort of
honesty, in designing works that accurately represent underlying structural principles or
operational capacities. Harries (1997) and Scruton (1979/2013) arrive at similar ethical
commitments to architectural design as expressive in a particular fashion, though of shared
community values, rather than of function or structural features. From another angle,
moralists point to the emotional impact of built environments as indicative of a union of the
aesthetically gripping and morally compelling (Ginsburg 1994), though it may be noted that
even where we detect such a union we need not judge the aesthetics of the architectural
object on the basis of any ethical import so communicated.
At the other extreme, autonomists propose that problems of ethics and aesthetics neither
need arise at once, nor need be resolved at once, in architectural design. If we see a
correlation in some architectural objects of ethically and aesthetically compelling design
solutions, we see in other objects no correlation at all. Thus, the modern city is replete with
instances of built structures that are well-functioning, high-utility, and facilitate much good in
the world yet meet no one’s standards of aesthetically worthy design. There is good reason
to uncouple these values just in case they mustconflict. Suppose there is an ethical
premium, for example, on the need to create environmentally sustaining structures, and that
we identify resolutions of that problem as generally bearing the greatest mark of moral
worth. Suppose further that crafting the optimal moral solution (vis-à-vis the environment)
always generates the most unattractive design—and that the inverse holds as well (the
better the design aesthetically, the worse the design for the environment). Then a
connection between ethics and aesthetics in architecture seems improbable.
A third position altogether proposes a pluralism. Sometimes ethical and aesthetic value
march hand-in-hand, other times not—and their ways of matching up are diverse and run in
various directions. So one architectural design may be aesthetically compelling as it reflects
its ethically upstanding character, whereas another design may be aesthetically compelling
as it reflects its ethically deficient character. What is required for cases of this last sort is
that the evaluator can identify the aesthetic success as grounded, per functional beauty
theory, in effective expression of the structure’s ethically deficient function (Sauchelli
2012b). An even more generalized pluralism would suggest that a wide range of aesthetic
23
and ethical valences can be matched up in different ways; we might value a war memorial
for the way it grimly expresses the horrors of war.
Traditional questions of architectural ethics. One reason that architectural ethics is
central to philosophy of architecture is that architects’ actions bear great influence over
other people’s moral lives. Architects design structures and environments for people, with
concomitant effects on personal behavior, capacity to choose courses of action, and ability
to satisfy preferences, visit harm, generate benefit, or exercise rights. As architects’ acts
shape spaces, boundaries, and pathways that structure individual behaviors and social
acts, they prompt normative ethical exploration along traditional lines.
To begin with, a traditional architectural ethics requires an account of
architectural responsibilities. Any such account should outline architects’ obligations to
other persons, ethical standards on which such obligations may be based, how to ensure
such standards might be met, and any other sorts of obligations architects might have, as
for example, to historic preservation or environmental protection. As concerns obligations to
persons, the range of stakeholders in architecture is great, hence ethical responsibility is
diffuse.
A further set of questions concerns rights. It is relatively novel to speak of authorial or
community rights in architecture; owner or client rights are historically parasitic on property
or sovereign rights. Other possibilities include rights of developers, builders, engineers,
environments, and societies. As that list grows, two further questions concern the sorts of
rights that can be attributed to such parties or entities, and the criteria for distributing and
prioritizing them given aesthetic as well as moral considerations.
Architectural utility is familiar as a Vitruvian concept but has a wholly other sense in an
agent-centered normative ethics, with a possible moral weighting not found in classic
architectural theory. Guidelines are needed to determine the usefulness of architectural
goods such as built structures, restorations, reconstructions, or plans. These might include
their social character, or individual preferences of the architect, owner, end-users, or public.
A utilitarian approach to architectural ethics is attractive in capturing the aims of architecture
to promote well-being, and relying on a ready marker of architectural value. However, it also
discounts other traditional architectural imperatives such as a Vitruvian-style pluralist may
honor, including beauty and structural integrity (Spector 2001).
Finally, a traditionalist picture of architectural ethics requires an account of virtues in the
domain (though these may be orthogonal to normative ethics). Here is potential
consonance with the Vitruvian tradition (and similarly virtue-oriented non-Western
traditions)—if we see the “good”, morally educated architect’s virtue and character as our
best guarantee of proper and productive weighting of values under differing circumstances
(Spector 2001).
Future-Focused Architectural Ethics. The focus of ethical rights and responsibilities in
architecture is typically taken as relative to present or past. Thus, we speak of obligations to
design and build in ethically responsible fashion, or preserve past architectural objects.
There are future-focused obligations, as well. Sustainable design is forward-looking even as
it is centered on what we design and build today. Further ethical issues may arise relative to
future architectural objects. As to obligations to future architectural objects, we see as much
in the short-term instance of planning around near-future buildings. More puzzling is
whether we might have “long-haul” future-facing obligations—apart from utility or prudential
considerations—in planning, for example, new cities or accommodations to climate change.
24
Special ethical questions of architecture. Architectural practice generates special moral

issues as befit its proper, idiosyncratic features, distinctive among the arts, the professions,
and social practices. Most notably, an array of ethical issues of social import arises from
architecture’s commitments to creation of a socially beneficial and functional art. Such
issues include the nature of “better” housing (and under varying conditions), what (if
anything) makes housing an obligation, and ways that such an obligation may accrue to, or
be satisfied by, architects. Yet other ethical issues special to architecture range over
matters of personal and social spaces and the articulations thereof, including criteria for
designing around concerns related to privacy, accessibility (for the public generally and
handicapped in particular), respecting community and neighborly preferences, and
promoting civic values.
Other ethical matters special to architecture are particularly visible in global perspective.
For example, there is inequitable distribution of housing across the developed and
developing nations, and part of the solution may be architectural (Caicco 2005). Further,
architecture incurs special environmental obligations given that waste and degradation
affect, and are affected by, architectural design. One conceptual challenge of sustainability
facing architects is to determine whether development is, in principle, a countervailing
interest. This is to ask, once environmental obligations are defined, how they may be
factored into or weighed against infrastructural and design interests and preferences.
Professional Ethics. Architectural professional ethics focuses on architects’ moral choices
in the context of practice (Wasserman, Sullivan, and Palermo 2000; T. Fisher 2010).
Professional ethical codes govern conduct in (and thereby protect) the architectural
profession and avert problems related to business, fiduciary, insurance, or liability functions;
the design function is an ethical focus relative to disability. Architectural law highlights
professional ethics matters as concern property, liability, and honesty. The law clarifies
responsibilities among parties to architectural practice; defines who or what in commercial
architectural interactions has moral agency—hence rights; and describes utility-wise or
financial measures of distribution in architecture. Legal regulations and judgments prompt
conceptual questions regarding such issues as intellectual property in architecture,
architects as arbitrators, and architects’ responsibilities to others (S. Fisher 2000a).
Intellectual Property. One conceptual issue concerning architectural intellectual property is
how such rights are to be weighed against other sorts of property rights, such as domestic
or commercial rights. A further issue is determined on the basis of judging architecture to be
a service or product. Taking architecture as service means that architects do not have a
stake on copyright, as they would then be creators-by-contract; tradition has it that rights to
expression of ideas so created accrue to the contracting party. Taking architecture
as product supports architects’ claim to copyright, given that expression is their creation—
whatever services are performed (Greenstreet 1998; Cushman and Hedemann 1995).
Copyright raises other concerns. Even as the law may license creation of an architectural
object reflecting core design aspects found in another object created by a different
architect, we may find morally blameworthy any cognizant “borrowing” without attribution or
permission. Alternatively, we might view this as a routine episode in the history of
architectural copying without attribution or permission. The challenge is to define relevant
obligations of one architect to others, present or past.
Architect as judge in owner-contractor disputes. Architects have a dual role, serving as
designer and administrator of architectural projects, and in this capacity may adjudicate
between owner and contractor in matters of dispute. Standard issues concern conflicts of
interest, grounds for adjudication, and criteria of fairness. Ethical issues of a
25
particularly architectural stripe include the degree to which specifications are poorly
satisfied such as warrants reckoning; maintenance of fealty to owners’ interests alongside
fairness to contractors and to satisfactory realization of one’s own design; and identification
of virtues appropriate to judgment in design-related disputes, along with facets of being an
architect that promote (or limit) such virtues.
Responsibility to others’ design. Architectural objects often develop over time in cumulative
and mutable fashion, through additions and alterations that—perhaps more frequently than
not—change the design of a different, original architect (or that of a prior alteration). For any
particular changes, or in consideration of design changes overall, we may stipulate
obligations to respect original or prior intent and execution. One brand of such obligations,
recognized in historic preservation and landmark laws, requires that aesthetic concerns in
the public interest trump private interests. Key conceptual questions concern how to
determine the source and conditions of any such obligations—and the sorts of
responsibilities architects should have to existing structures. Those responsibilities may
extend to commitment to the integrity of work by fellow architects.
26
Q. No. 6 (a): Describe three Ethical criticisms of the Aesthetics of architecture

explained by Nigel Taylor. (15 Marks)
Answer)
THREE ETHICAL CRITICISMS OF THE AESTHETICS OF ARCHITECTURE EXPLAINED

BY NIGEL TAYLOR
The three ethical criticisms of the aesthetics of architecture explained by Nigel taylor can be
bulleted as;
1. Support or criticise architectural forms in terms of their structural honesty
2. Deploying ethical reasons for favouring (or criticising) a particular aesthetic style
3. Evaluation of building in terms of progressive tendency in a given culture or period –

‘Sprit of the age’
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Q. No. 6 (b): Select at least one building in Pakistan to elaborate the argument.
Prepare 15 power point slides to present in the workshop. (15 Marks)
Answer)
37
38
39
40
41
References & Researches Cited:
o https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/307/viewall/environmental-protection-in-islam/
o http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2016/vol2issue1/PartG/2-1-57.pdf
o https://www.scribd.com/document/146959145/Principles-of-Environmental-Ethics
o https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/King-built-environment.pdf
o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_environment
o http://earthcharter.org/invent/images/uploads/Global%20Warming%20is%20an%20Et
hical%20Issue%20by%20Alan%20AtKisson.pdf
o https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/09/why-climate-change-
is-an-ethical-problem/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.09d62c206aec
o https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ethics-and-global-climate-change-
84226631
o https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257715457_Ethical_Issues_in_the_Constru
ction_Industry_Contractor's_Perspective
o https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812004545
o http://pultar.bilkent.edu.tr/Papers/Ethics/Ethics.html
o https://iaps.architexturez.net/system/files/pdf/1202bm1030.content.pdf
o https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/architecture/#ArcEth
42

Solution-3678 Environmental Ethics in Built Environment Assgn 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Solution-3678 Environmental Ethics in Built Environment Assgn 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Department of Home & Health Sciences

Block No. 06, Sector H-8,

Environmental Ethics in the Built (3678)

Q. No. 1: Explain the Islamic perspective with reference to Environmental

Shahadah Prayer Fasting Zakat Hajj

Submission Seeking help Improvement Social inclusion Purification

Recognition Respect & love Jamma

• Accountability – Judgement day

Islam & Environment Protection:

Nature is a ‘Gift of God’:

The Qur’an says:

Preservation, not Profligation:

Environment, in Islamic worldview is a ‘gift of God’ to mankind. Islam is a universal religion

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS:

Justice and Sustainability:

SUFFICIENCY AND COMPASSION

SOLIDARITY AND PARTICIPATION

In a globalizing economy, we participate in a vast, international economic community, one

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN BUILD ENVIRONMENT:

ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

THE INHERENT VALUE OF NON-HUMAN ENTITIES

Our Moral Responsibility

Q. No. 3: How Ethical concerns relate to Global warming and Buildings?

Global Warming is an Ethical Issue

Climate Change as a Challenge to Ethical Action

Climate change raises serious questions about how we should relate

ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE

Trajectory of Future Emissions

2- Allocating emissions at a particular time

Ethical Issues in the Construction Industry

• Inadequate and unclear disclosure of important terms of the contract, particularly

Fraud and bribery

VALUE SYSTEMS: THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF BUILDING ETHICS

Values and Value Judgments in Building

Technical values are related to the satisfaction of non-human requirements, as well as

Explicitly stated value judgments are encountered in the clauses of professional

Much more controversial, however, are socio-cultural and percepto-cognitional value

Central issues include foundational matters regarding the nature of:

1. Architecture as an art form, design medium or other product or practice.

Ethical Problems in Architecture & their Solutions:

Some problems of architectural ethics are characteristic of a range of typical moral

Special ethical questions of architecture. Architectural practice generates special moral

Q. No. 6 (a): Describe three Ethical criticisms of the Aesthetics of architecture

THREE ETHICAL CRITICISMS OF THE AESTHETICS OF ARCHITECTURE EXPLAINED

1. Support or criticise architectural forms in terms of their structural honesty

3. Evaluation of building in terms of progressive tendency in a given culture or period –

References & Researches Cited:

S-ar putea să vă placă și