In Class


Table of contents

Getting Started

“Just don’t make the world worse. I know that I’m supposed to tell you to aspire to great things. But I’m going to lower the bar here for a minute. I’m going to ask first and foremost that you do not use your prodigious talents to mess things up. Because too many smart people are doing that already.”

– Advice to graduates from Charles Wheelan, Dartmouth commencement speaker, 2011

Welcome to “Moral Reasoning and Interaction Design.” In our first class meeting, we’ll spend some time getting to know each other and discuss our task for the quarter: learning to design technology that doesn’t make the world worse.

In Class

  • Introduction [Slides]
  • Reading seminar
  • Dark patterns workshop [Slides]
  • Fireside Chat #1

Module 1 (Utilitarianism)

“Better never means better for everyone; It always means worse, for some.”

— Margaret Atwood

Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people. At first glance, this seems like an appealing approach to design; no product will work for everyone, so what more can you ask for than to maximize the overall good you deliver to all? Our seminar week will cover the concept of utility and the perspective of maximizing welfare. What kind of design process would a utilitarian designer adopt? In studio 1, you will try your hand at designing for social utility. How easy is it to apply the utilitarian calculation to design work? What are the benefits of this approach? And where will utilitarian designs fail users and wider society? What does this approach to feature design miss?

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Utilitarianism [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Judgment Call
    Activity Details

    In class, you will receive instructions about trying out the Judgment Call activity “Drone Delivery.” With a small group of 2-4 students, generate a list of stakeholders. Each group member should then individually use the Judgment Call deck to draw review parameters (a star-level, a stakeholder group, and a principle) and write one review to match those parameters. When everyone is finished writing, each group member should share their review and discuss as a group.

    Next, discuss the gig economy space, as you will be designing a Utilitarian gig economy platform in studio this week. As a group, choose the type of gig work your platform will support. Then generate an expansive list of all possible stakeholders of your platform. Assign one stakeholder group to each group member to use during their individual at-home preparation for studio this week.


  • Studio 1: A Utilitarian gig economy platform
    Activity Details

    Your task is to design a gig economy platform that distributes tasks across workers (like Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Rover, or 99Designs) that is grounded in Utilitarian principles. Work together in groups of 2-4.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Define the type of gig work you will support - Generate your list of direct and indirect stakeholders - Generate product reviews

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Share all product reviews and discuss. What features do they suggest you should or shouldn’t implement? How do these features connect to Utilitarian principles?

    Part 2 [20 mins]: Drawing on this discussion, brainstorm as many features as you can, writing them down on one large sheet of paper. Using affinity diagramming and concept mapping, cluster these feature ideas and draw links between them. Use the resulting map to select a cohesive set of features that will make up your overall design concept.

    Part 3 [10 mins]: Create a mockup showcasing your design concept. Give your platform a name, show it visually, describe the features you selected, and explain how they connect to Utilitarian principles. Add slides showcasing your product to this Google slide deck Don’t forget to include your names!


  • Fireside Chat #2

Module 2 (Capabilities Approach)

“When you call something an edge case, you’re really just defining the limits of what you care about.”

— Eric Meyer

What are users—and those indirectly affected by your product—able to do in their daily lives? Do they have time and space for leisure and play? Are they free to act autonomously? Can they express emotions freely and love and associate with whomever they choose? This week we will reframe questions about what it means to do good to foreground the practical capabilities that are afforded to each person affected. In studio, you will practice designing a system with consideration for how it intersects with the practical capabilities that people do and do not have. How does this approach change your design practice and output?

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding the Capabilities Approach [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Capabilities Cards
    Activity Details

    In class, you will receive instructions for creating Capabilities Cards that you can use as you design or critique a product for its potential effects on people’s capabilities. Once you have been introduced to the Capabilities Cards, work through the preparatory exercise below.

    In groups of 2-4, generate a list of direct and indirect stakeholders of self-driving vehicle technology. Choose three stakeholder groups to consider. Divide up the 10 capabilities cards among your group members. For each selected stakeholder group and each assigned capability, each person should individually brainstorm as many ways as possible that self-driving vehicles might affect that capability for that group. Discuss as a group.

    Next, as a group, discuss IoT technologies more generally, which include everything from smart city technologies to smart toys to smart speakers like the Amazon Echo or Google Home. Select one type of IoT technology that you would like to examine in studio this week. You can also design a type of IoT device that does not yet exist! Then, in preparation for this week’s studio, generate a list of the direct and indirect stakeholders of your chosen technology. Assign one stakeholder group to each of your group members.


  • Studio 2: A Capabilities Approach IoT system
    Activity Details

    Your task this week is to design an internet-of-things (IoT) device guided by the Capabilities Approach.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Define the type of IoT device you will create - Generate your list of direct and indirect stakeholders - Brainstorm how your device might affect each of Nussbaum’s capabilities for a particular stakeholder group

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Each group member should individually share highlights from their pre-work. Focus on the capabilities impacts you thought of that you feel are most noteworthy.

    Part 2 [20 mins]: Drawing inspiration from the highlights shared by your group members, generate features for your that IoT support specific capabilities for specific stakeholder groups. Select three features to develop into a mockup.

    Part 3 [10 mins]: Create a mockup showcasing your design concept. Give your device a name, show it visually, describe the features you selected, and explain which capabilities they support (and for whom). Additionally, list one way in which you can envision one of your features undermining a particular capability. Add slides showcasing your product to this Google slide deck Don’t forget to include your names!


  • Fireside Chat #3

Module 3 (Libertarianism)

“At Netflix, we are competing for our customers’ time, so our competitors include Snapchat, YouTube, sleep, etc.”

— Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO

Designing for users’ own good threatens to force the designer’s ideas and ideals on others. The libertarian perspective challenges the idea that doing good means maximizing utility, instead prioritizing individual freedom and leaving it to the user to define good and bad for themselves. What does this new perspective offer? What problems with consequentialist perspectives like utilitarianism does it resolve? And what new problems does it introduce? In this week’s seminar, we will tackle the tension between designing for utility and designing for freedom. In this week’s studio, you will have the chance to test drive the libertarian approach to design. What techniques will you use to ensure you are prioritizing freedom? When does persuasion on the part of the designer become coercion? How will you avoid coercion in your final product so that your user is truly free? As you examine your new design concept consider the ways in which it would offer something good for the world and the ways in which it might actually make things worse.

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Libertarianism [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Would You Rather
    Activity Details

    In class, you will be introduced to a design technique based on the conversational game, “Would You Rather” (WYR). After this introduction, design a set of WYR prompts to ask users about neighborhood safety technologies. In groups of 2-4:

    • Spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with neighborhood safety technologies. These are apps and websites broadcast safety incidents that enable people to share or learn about potential safety threats. Read about platforms like Citizen, Amazon Neighbors, Nextdoor, and others
    • After learning about neighborhood safety technologies, individually brainstorm a set of WYR prompts that you could ask stakeholders of these systems. Try to come up with at least 10 prompts. Add your prompts to one large collaborative sheet shared by your team
    • After all group members have added their prompts, each group member should individually vote on each prompt
    • After everyone has voted, discuss all prompts, why you voted the way you did, and what this suggests to you about the design of a future system

    Next, prepare your materials for the week ahead:

    • Based on the prompts that produce the most conversation and seem the most provocative, construct a set of 6-10 total prompts that you will use to collect data this week
    • Don’t forget that this week’s studio will focus on Libertarian principles. How can you incorporate these into the prompts you choose?

  • Studio 2: Libertarian neighborhood safety app
    Activity Details

    Your task is to design a neighborhood safety platform that is grounded in Libertarian ethics. Work together in groups of 2-4.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Generate WYR prompts - Collect WYR data

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Pool all your data from your WYR voting. Discuss the reactions your encountered as people were voting and share any notes you took. Use this data to draft a set of design principles for creating a neighborhood safety technology

    Part 2 [20 mins]: Drawing on the principles you distilled and the principles of Libertarianism, design a neighborhood safety platform. As a refresher, this means creating a system that ensures: 1) no forced redistribution of resources, 2) no paternalism, 3) no morals legislation

    Part 3 [10 mins]: Add slides to this Google slide deck describing your system.

    • Show us what it looks like (include an image) and tell us what it’s called
    • Describe three different features
    • Explain how each feature is grounded in your user data
    • Explain how each feature connects to Libertarianism

    Don’t forget to include your names!


  • Fireside Chat #4

Module 4 (Deontology)

“Most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be or do either evil or good.”

— Hannah Arendt

This week, we will compare the perspectives we have already considered with the Kantian branch of deontology. How might your approach to design change when it is your motive—and not the consequences of that motive—that count? What does it mean for a designer to adhere to “categorical imperatives?” We will discuss a new way of determining the right thing to build, which requires reasoning your way to moral laws, rather than designing for a particular outcome. In our studio this week, you will have a chance to try designing according to categorical imperatives. How will you protect the most vulnerable users? How will you live up to this demanding perspective that requires you to do the right thing at all times and with no exceptions? And if it is only your motive that counts, does that mean you no longer need to pay attention to the outcome of your design?

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Deontology [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Universalize Your Maxim
    Activity Details

    Background

    Kant says that applying the test of “universalizing your maxim” can help us distinguish right from wrong. Use this test to both identify problematic aspects of existing products and evaluate your own novel design ideas. What kind of world would you end up with if everyone made the choice you are making?

    To “universalize your maxim” when designing, try this:

    1. Begin by isolating your feature of interest and describing it in one sentence. What exactly is the feature or pattern you are focusing on? What defines it? This can be tricky, as it requires getting at the heart of what makes it ethically interesting and describing the class of equivalent features.
    2. Next, identify the class of designers who might be in a position to create UI like this.
    3. Brainstorm what might happen if everyone you identified in step two implemented the feature you isolated in step one.

    Your Task Today

    In groups of 2-4:

    • Consider Instagram’s “You’re All Caught Up” label. Apply the three-step universalize-your-maxim process to this feature and discuss. Does it pass or fail the test?
    • Individually, choose one feature from an app you use regularly. Have each person in your group show their chosen feature and describe. Then as a group, apply the same three-step process to each feature.

  • Studio 4: Deontological online dating
    Activity Details

    Your task is to design an online dating app that is grounded in the principles of Deontology. Work together in groups of 2-4.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Generate design concepts - Apply the universalize-your-maxim test to your design concepts

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Each group member should share a select subset of their favorite design concepts with the group. Include the designs you chose to apply the universalize-your-maxim test to, and share the results.

    Part 2 [20 mins]: Building on the features you all shared, design an online dating app that Kant would approve of. Define at least three different features that you will include. List one common feature of other online dating apps that you will not include because it violates deontological principles.

    Part 3 [10 mins]: Create a mockup of your app and create slides in this Google slide deck:

    • Give it a name and show us what it looks like
    • Show the three features you are including
    • Describe the feature you are not including
    • Don’t forget to include your names!

    Part 4 [5 mins]: For each feature you are including, ask yourselves the following questions:

    • What motivates this design decision?
    • Is this motivation a hypothetical imperative or a categorical imperative? That is: is this design decision about achieving some other purpose, or is it good in-and-of itself?
    • In the notes field of your slides, explain your answer to these questions in one sentence for each feature.

  • Fireside Chat #5

Module 5 (Virtue Ethics)

“A broken gun is better designed than a working gun.”

— Mike Monteiro

What does it mean to be a “good” person? How should our technologies help us become our best selves? This week, we will discuss the idea of cultivating virtue and what it means to “be an excellent human being.” What is the purpose (or telos) of your product? How does that purpose promote human excellence in users and in the designer herself? This week, you will try designing products with an end-goal of promoting virtue and cultivating excellence.

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Virtue Ethics [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Determining Telos
    Activity Details

    The Aristotelian approach to Virtue Ethics asks us to make decisions by considering the telos, or purpose, of our products and institutions. Being explicit about the telos of what you design can help you stay on course as you make decisions about your design. In studio this week, you will designing a Virtue Ethics social media platform. In preparation, work together in groups of 2-4 today to complete the tasks below.

    Part 1:

    • Work together to brainstorm the telos you want your product to have. Write out this purpose in one sentence
    • Connect this purpose back to the goal of enabling people to be excellent human beings. Why is this purpose one that it is worth pursuing? How would achieving this purpose bring people closer to being excellent human beings? If you cannot answer this question easily (i.e., if it is difficult to determine how the purpose of your product would contribute to human excellence), go back and revisit your purpose
    • Individually, brainstorm as many different features of social media platforms as possible. Then, combine your individual lists. As a group, go through each feature and discuss whether it align with your telos or conflict with it. Take a photo or otherwise document your feature map to save for studio

    Part 2:

    As a group, construct an interview protocol as a group of eight questions or less. The purpose of the interview is to understand: 1) how people feel about the telos you have proposed, and 2) what social media features they would like to use that would support this telos.
  • Studio 5: Virtue Ethics social media
    Activity Details

    This week, your task is to design a Virtue Ethics social media platform that achieves the telos you previously defined. Work together in groups of 2-4.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Define your product’s telos - Collect data from users about how a platform should achieve this telos

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Each member of the group should summarize their interview results and read aloud any particularly noteworthy quotes. For each interview, discuss how the interviewee’s perspective might influence your design. Add a slide summary of your product telos, connected virtues, and at least one theme from your interview to this Google slide deck.

    Part 2 [25 mins]: Drawing on this interview data and on your feature review from the prior class (for a refresher on the features you considered, consult the photo you took), design a platform that achieves your telos. Add slides to this Google slide deck that:

    • Show your product and give it a name
    • Describe its most important features
    • Describe how these features achieve your defined telos
    • Describe how these features reflect users’ perspectives, as revealed through interviews
    • Include your names!

    Part 3 [5 mins]: Finally, consider which virtues your product helps people cultivate. In the notes section of your slides, list how your features connect to specific virtues.


  • Fireside Chat #6

Module 6 (Ethics of Care)

“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

– Simone Weil

So far, we have examined ethical traditions that consider what it means to do good from the perspective of an individual. But the people who use your products exist in relation to others and to the larger social systems in which they are embedded. What does that mean for the designer? What does it mean to prioritize people’s relationships and obligations to one another? And how do these designs differ from the products you created using the other perspectives we have studied this quarter?

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Ethics of Care [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Mindful Usage Exercise
    Activity Details

    This week we will be considering how popular technologies connect to the Care Ethic principles outlined in the Tronto reading. Work together in groups of 2-4 to practice applying this framework. Go through each of the four elements of care—attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness—and complete the following:

    • Together, come up with a specific technology and a common usage scenario that disrupts that makes it more difficult for people to engage in this dimension of care
    • Redesign one aspect of the relevant technology to make it more likely that people engage in this dimension of care
    • Add one slide to this Google slide deck showing and describing the before and after scenarios

  • Studio 6: Ethics of Care eCommerce
    Activity Details

    Your task is to take on the role of an evil designer and create an eCommerce platform that interferes with each of the four elements of care (attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness). Importantly, your version of evil should be realistic; what kinds of self-serving features might a modern platform actually implement that would nudge people away from engaging in care? Work together in groups of 2-4.

    [Pre-work already completed]

    - Mindful usage notes - Reflections on using an eCommerce platform

    Part 1 [15 mins]: Each group member should share a summary of their mindful usage experience and reflections. What platform did you use? What did you notice? How do you think the features of this platform might shape your ability to notice care needs, take responsibility for them, perform care competently, and be responsive?

    Part 2 [25 mins]: Once again, go through the four elements of care: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness. For each one, draw on your group reflections to design one or more features of an eCommerce platform that will make it challenging for the user to live up to the relevant care principle. These features should also benefit the company and be realistic. Add slides to this Google slide deck showcasing the resulting platform.

    Part 3 [5 mins]: Spend a few minutes thinking about how these features are or are not reflected in current products. Add a few sentences in the notes section of your slide(s) giving your take on the state of the industry today.


  • Fireside Chat #7

Module 7 (Pragmatism)

“The pragmatist knows that doubt is an art which has to be acquired with difficulty.”

– Charles Sanders Pierce

What are the limits of working out your ethical stance from an armchair? What are you missing about your users’ reality? Pragmatism draws on the scientific method to move past hypothetical thought experiments and engage in real-world experimentation. This week, we will discuss how to go about engaging with the messy reality in which your users and other stakeholders live. How does this change what you choose to build? How will you engage in this experimentation? In studio, you will consider the practical consequences on people’s wellbeing when designers exploit users’ cognitive biases. As the quarter draws to a close, we will examine the similarities and tensions in these seven competing ways of deciding what to build.

In Class

  • Seminar: Understanding Pragmatism [Slides]
  • Studio Warm-Up (Design Technique): Cognitive Bias Exercise
    Activity Details

    This week, you will be redesigning an existing video-sharing platform, like YouTube, Vimeo, TikTok, or Instagram, through pragmatist methods. The Andersen article concludes with three techniques to help us engage in pragmatic moral reasoning: practice, cognitive science, and democracy. This week, you will try all three of these components. Today we begin with practice.

    In class, work together in groups of 2-4 to choose a video-sharing platform that you feel could use an ethical upgrade. Spend some time trying it out. Next, articulate the design problem you want to address and explaining how you would evaluate a solution to it. Write down a specific design problem in the form of a question regarding the ethics of the platform you have chosen. What is one thing you think designers should consider? Next, in two sentences or less, write down how you would evaluate whether a redesigned version of the platform addressed this problem.

    But the pragmatist approach says that you should not be defining this problem and testing technique alone. This week, you will request input from users to help you determine if you are tackling the right problem. Note, that this is different from user testing or traditional interviews where you ask people about their experience with a product. Here, you are asking people to co-design with you and to critique whether you are even thinking about the problem correctly. As a group, define a short set of questions that you can use to ask a few other people to weigh in on your framing of the problem and approach to evaluation.

    As a group, make a plan for who you will ask for input this week (see at-home assignment). Try to diversify the set of perspectives you solicit. For example, one group member might ask an older adult for their input while another reaches out to a fellow student. One group member might ask an avid user while another asks someone who they know dislikes the platform in question.


  • Studio 7: Pragmatist video sharing
    Activity Details

    Your task is to lay the groundwork for a pragmatic redesign of a video-sharing platform, like YouTube, Vimeo, TikTok, or Instagram, using all three pragmatist methods of: practice, cognitive science, and democracy

    Part 1 [15 mins]: As a group, share the advice you got from others. Use this to revisit your articulated design problem and your approach to measuring improvements to a future design. Make revisions based on their advice.

    Part 2 [20 mins]: Next, consider cognitive science. This graphics shows all 188 known cognitive biases. (It does not, unfortunately, describe precisely what they are, so you will need to search briefly and look up some of them!) Identify three known cognitive biases that might be problematically exploited by the current design of the platform. Then connect these biases to the design problem you outlined and your approach to measuring it. What practical harm are you trying to address and how will you know if you fixed it?

    Part 3 [10 mins]: Propose one way in which you could adjust the design of the platform. Add slides to this Google slide deck explaining:

    • The platform you want to redesign
    • The problem or harm you want to address
    • The way cognitive biases contribute to this harm
    • One design idea for addressing this problem
    • A plan for evaluating the effectiveness of your idea

  • Fireside Chat #8

Final project

In Class

  • Final project presentations
  • Seminar: Last thoughts [Slides]

Table of contents