on account of the community implications of their decisions they are subject to
rather more public scrutiny and criticism than most other contributors.
A prescient review, ‘Planning Power and Ethics’ (Gerecke and Reid 1991),
noted that ‘Planning has no equivalent of the grouping styled as Doctors for Social
Responsibility [and]...planners have been less willing to look at alternatives in
a serious way’ or indeed to follow through their decision-making with a view
to ascertaining how well it works. Planning is a self-conscious service, aligning
closely with the conservative, commodifying and consumerist mores of those
being planned for.
A relative complication is illustrated in figure 1.2, Characteristics of individ-
uals; the left column shows the individual emanations of a saintly ‘benign’ kind,
juxtaposed with those on the right of a Hobbesian ‘wicked’ kind. One does not
have to be all that cynical to accept that some people lead ‘benign’ lives, others
lead ‘wicked’ lives, and some others live moderately ‘Jekyll andHyde’ benign and
wicked lives! The outcome (Reade 1985: 95) ‘depends entirely on what we wish
to achieve, and these actions, clearly, can be answered in terms of our values,
which may change’. Three observations can be made relative to the contempo-
raryethicalsituation.
First: that ‘worthiness, goodness, rightness and liberty’ (Rawls 1971) are not
necessarily or inherently the kinds of outpouring to be expected from any person
wishing to maximize their freedoms and increase the variety of their lifestyle.
Individuals within Galbraith’s (1992) ‘culturally content’ situation, the one-
dollar-one-vote system of delusional democracy, cannot be relied upon to guide
Sustainable and Ethical 29‘BENIGN’ ‘WICKED’Love Mistrust
Truth Deceit
Tolerance Ruthlessness
Service Exploitation
Justice Anarchy
Perfection Disorder
Aestheticism Brutalism
Meaningful Chaotic
Safe Dangerous
Belonging Footloose
Esteem Hate
We M eThe ‘benign’ column is based largely on Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’
(1968,Toward a Psychology of Being). For an insight into the ‘wicked’
hypothesis, consult Rittel and Webber’s ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of
Planning’ (1973,Policy Sciences, 4 (2)). Refer also to Bolan (1983) Figure
1 ‘Range of Moral Communities of Obligation Journal of Planning Edu-
cation and Research, 3, 1983.Figure 1.2 Characteristics of individuals.