Ethics and architectural practice: choosing projects or transforming them?

Lunch conversations among colleagues often lead to very interesting discussions.
This week’s topic: ethics in the choice of projects we decide to take on. Throughout our careers, we have the opportunity to work on a wide range of projects, all very different in nature. Some of these projects align with our values, others less so, and a few not at all.

Two options then present themselves. We can choose to participate in projects that do not always fully reflect our values, while dedicating all our efforts and talents to the well-being of the users—finding satisfaction in the positive, tangible impact we have on their lives. Or we can choose to work exclusively on projects whose intrinsic values perfectly align with our own and those of our firm.

Here is a simple example that illustrates this dilemma well. In a fictional world, the government decides to move forward with the construction of a zoological garden. Funding is secured, the project will proceed regardless, and the call for proposals to select the professional teams has begun.

Many people are strongly opposed to the captivity of wild animals—an opinion that would likely be widely shared within STGM. But considering that the project will move forward with or without us, we are faced with two choices: refrain from submitting a proposal for a project that runs counter to our values, or bring all our talent, expertise, and sensitivity to animal welfare to the table, and participate in creating the best zoo in the world—one where the animals do not suffer from captivity and where Simba, the cousin from the savannah, might even feel a little envious.

That pleasant lunch conversation ended with a question mark. Every project is unique; nothing is ever purely black or white. These difficult decisions are always made in a grey zone of varying shades. As architects, when a project does not align with our deepest values, what stance should we adopt? Do we choose to protest by stepping aside, disengaging, and walking away? Or, on the contrary, do we choose to engage fully—heart and soul—with the primary goal of improving the lives of those who will use and inhabit the project, whether we are involved or not?

The debate remains entirely open. And you—what do you think?