Futurists’ Professional Ethics

Futurists may be regarded ethical as far as their conducts are in conformity with the standards of professional moralities, but how do they define their professional ethics and to what extent do they remain really faithful to those ethics?

People use ‘ethics’ to evaluate morally other people’s intentions, actions, and many other sorts of things in an unconscious manner. However, the term has a broad range of meanings and applications.

Ethics is often regarded as a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and logic of what is morally good and right. However, in a post-modern sense, ethics is not just about choosing between ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based on pre-established moral mindsets. Rather it is about finding ways in which free human beings, without any obligations, whether monetary or hierarchical, can live peacefully together. Indeed, for Aristotle ‘ethics’ (etikos) was about finding ways for free men to construct a viable community (Arvidsson and et al, 2008).

In a deeper layer, ethics is typically broken into four different subjects, including meta-ethics, the value theory, the theory of conduct, and applied ethics (Wikipedia, 2011).

As far as the futurists are concerned, a theory of conduct may define their ethical behavior. It studies what is right, obligated, permitted, required by duty, and what is more than duty requires. It also studies the opposites of these things: what is wrong, forbidden, denied, and evil (for the futurists). Theories of conduct try to answer questions like: “How should I act as a futurist, and why?” In this sense we may debate the ultimate standards of right and wrong—standards of morality, or moral rules for the futurists.

For a futurist, ethics becomes meaningful and important in terms of his/her professional knowledge and conduct. Ethics sounds critical in Futures Studies because we are talking about a moral philosophy and its consequences on individuals, organizations, communities, environment and in one word, the globe (Burke, 2005). Pentti Malaska (2001) believes that Futures Studies is as a value-rational field of inquiry. “First it aims to be explicit in values and try to highlight value differences rather that fixed values. And secondly its questions concern not only what are the proper means to a given end in the sense of technical or instrumental rationality, but also and mainly what are the possible good ends well worth of promoting and pursuing.” (p. 7)

On the other hand, Wendell Bell (2002) calls the futurists to pay attention to the ethical implications of their work and the responsibility they should take: “it is our business to be ethically concerned about what to study, how to study it (including protecting the rights of human subjects of research), the purposes for which knowledge is used, and the consequences of its use for human freedom and well-being.”(p. 11).

There are other futurists having high level discussions behind the closed doors or in the public sphere of online chat rooms fixated on one question alone: “Are the futurists ethical persons?” Any endeavor for a higher purpose, especially a well-established definition of futurists’ professional ethics needs to be predicated on answering this question. In fact, there is a need for an ethical code of practice or standard. A familiar moral rule is the ‘Golden Rule’: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Can this rule be reintroduced to the futurists?

Should we take a conservative approach dealing with our professional ethics? In this sense, should we regard it as a constant measure of all our conducts wishing to reaffirm the value of ethics, even creating codes of conduct for how to practice our foresight knowledge? Should we draw up a neoconservative view based on finding new ways in which human beings may be able to live together peacefully? Or, should we follow a relative approach and define our professional ethics reflecting what is imposed on us and what we can personally choose?

Personally, I have no interest in ‘ethical relativity’ that is unfortunately dominated our modern world. Philosophically, I’m either a good or a bad futurist. I cannot be both good and bad at the same time. Anyway, selecting each of aforementioned approaches (especially a neoconservative one that I strongly support) depends on our personal worldviews and values, but at professional level there are ‘common purposes’ and ‘values’ that the futurists can jointly agree upon.

Richard Slaughter (1999) reminds the 1976 Dubrovnik 5th World Conference on Futures Studies, working group 1 (on ethics) that produced a set of general guidelines. The guidelines were based on an obligation to: (a) stress explicitly your value basis; (b) develop and test theories also in other perspectives than yours; (c) give information about your work so that be understood by people in general, not just the experts.

Using Kuhn’s ideas, Bell (2002) identified a trans-disciplinary matrix for Futures Studies including ‘common purposes’ in his Foundations of Futures Studies. That means making a better world where all human beings will have an equal and good chance of living long and satisfying lives and investigating the knowledge and ethical foundations of Futures Studies.

At the same time, Bell (1996) considers the role of the futurist as ‘consultant’ and provides some examples of unethical behavior. These include placing self-interest above that of the client, withholding information and padding expenses. Meanwhile, Slaughter (1999) reminds that there are types of work that futurists should avoid. Those that conflict with their professional ethics, ie., that are exploitive, dishonest, unreasonably self-promoting and which, in any way, bring the profession into disrepute.

In an interesting inquiry by Natalie Dian (2009), six foresight styles were identified keeping an eye on ethical aspects: Futurist, Activist, Opportunist, Flexist, Equilibrist and Reactionist. She warns about the opportunists as they don't attempt to solve the problems of the world, but contribute by doing the best possible for themselves and those around them.

One of the best codes of practice that is suggested for the futurists and embraces ethical considerations is offered by Dr. Michael Jackson (2010), president of Shaping Tomorrow’s Foresight Network. Whenever I read its “Our beliefs” part, it touches my heart. It says:

• We believe people are basically good and wanting to contribute to a better world.
• We believe everyone has something to contribute and we inspire, engage and enable them to do so.
• We recognize and respect everyone as unique people and try to help them use all of their talents at all times.
• We encourage everyone we work with to treat others in a similar fashion.

It is worded simply, but full of respect and care for everyone interested in foresight. Such beliefs can build up great codes of ethics for the futurists. The remaining problem is to what extent are we willing to remain faithful to those ethics. Are we going to put the moralities first on our agenda?

Masini (2011) remembers how ethical elements in Futures Studies were included as part of an educational program she taught in Rome. Parts of my current Strategic Foresight studies curriculum at Regent University are founded on moral values necessary for everyone who is going to break into foresight profession. For instance, LMOL 601 that is based on Servant Leadership had a great effect on my past assumptions concerning the leadership. It reframed my paradigm in a new manner that is serving others with all I have in mind and hands.

I believe futuring cannot be separated from ethics. A futurist without moralities has nothing to do with his/her knowledge and profession. It is up to us either become ethical futurists or opportunists who put their interests above their clients’ benefits. Moral futurists are ornamented with moral jewelries the best of them “love for all the humanity”. Of course, our world needs actions more than chanting beautiful slogans. Futurists’ professional ethics should be developed and practiced at personal and social levels as much as possible. Given its post-modern meaning, we should find ways for human beings to live peacefully together. This is the sweet fruit of futurists’ professional ethics.

References:
Arvidsson, Adam & et al (2008). The Crisis of Value and the Ethical Economy, Journal of Futures Studies, 12(4), 9–20.
Bell, Wendell. (2002). A community of futurists and the state of the futures field. Futures, 34(3-4), 235-247.
Bell, Wendell. (1996). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge, vol. 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Burke, Robert (2005). Beyond Strategy: Leadership, Futures and Ethics in a Complex World, Journal of Futures Studies, 10(1), 133–138.
Dian, Natalie. (2009). Foresight styles assessment: A theory based study in competency and change. Journal of Futures Studies, 13(3), 59-74.
Jackson, Michael (2010). Professional Futurists Code of Conduct, http://shapingtomorrowmain.ning.com/forum/topics/professional-futurists-...
Malaska, Pentti (2001). A futures research outline of a post-modern idea of progress, Futures, 33, 225–243.
Masini, Eleonora Barbieri (2011). How to Teach Futures Studies: Some Experiences, Journal of Futures Studies, 15(4), 111 – 120.
Slaughter, Richard A. (1999). Professional standards in futures work, Futures, 31, 835–851.
Wikipedia (2011). Ethics, http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

---

Alireza Hejazi is a freelance futurist. He is the founder and developer of “FuturesDiscovery.com”. Hejazi is a member of WFS & WFSF. He is currently an MA student of Strategic Foresight at Regent University School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. His works are available at: http://www.futuresdiscovery.com/.