由Rory Stott发布
•         99% Invisible AIA KMD Architects建筑事务所，建筑新闻编辑类
        by Rory Stott
        •  Architecture News Editor's Choice 99% Invisible AIA KMD Architects
在99％隐形播客最新的一集中，Roman Mars勇敢地选择了一个非常敏感的话题：带有执行室或囚犯单独监禁室的监狱的设计。更具体地说，播客讨论了建筑师是否在道义上有责任拒绝此种设计，以及建筑师作为一种职业是否应该有一种拒绝此种设计的道德准则。
他将建筑界比作医学界，根据医学大体目的是保护生命，而非摧毁生命，美国医学协会为所有成员规定道德准则，不让他们参与注射毒针。美国建筑研究所的道德准则既普遍又相对不足：“成员应尽其专业努力维护人权。”
然而，该组织建筑师、设计师和规划师的社会责任作为一个群体，试图改变这一点。他们希望为AIA道德准则加入一条，禁止建筑师接受为“执行死刑或酷刑或其他包括长期禁闭在内的残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚”的任何设计的佣金。
这场辩论围绕着KMD建筑事务所设计的在北加州的一所监狱——鹈鹕湾保障房单元——有些人将其形容为一个独立的单元。该播客提出了一个有趣的观点：虽然许多设计特点是不公平的，也有一些建筑风格——如透空牢房走廊上的门和天窗——这被描述为“优良的设计特点”。
这或许可以引起相对的观点：正如医学拒绝注射死刑一直没有杜绝处决死刑一样，人们争论，没有建筑师的话，监狱很可能由那些设计技术不良的人们所设计。换句话说，如果建筑师拒绝自己设计监狱，可能使得新建的监狱变得更加不人道。
那么，建筑界应该有一个严格的道德准则吗？建筑界是否有其首要目标（正如医学界的目的是保护生命一样）呢？或者，各成员是否可以自己选择他们心目中的道德呢？拒绝参加设计监狱能否改善此种情况，或只是使情况变得更糟呢？
In the latest episode of his 99% Invisible podcast, Roman Mars bravely takes on a very sensitive topic: the design of prisons which contain execution chambers or house prisoners in solitary confinement. More specifically, the podcast discusses whether architects have a moral duty to decline these commissions and whether, as a profession, architecture should have a code of ethics which prevents registered architects from participating in such designs.
He compares architecture to the medical profession, where the American Medical Association imposes an ethical code on its members which all but forbids them from taking part in execution by lethal injection, based on medicine’s general aim of preservation, rather than destruction of life. The American Institute of Architect’s ethical code is both generic and meager in comparison: “Members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors.”
However the organization Architects, Designers and Planners for Social Responsibility is highlighted as a group trying to change this. They would like to see a clause added to the AIA’s ethical code, which prohibits architects from accepting any commission designed for “execution or for torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including prolonged solitary confinement.”
The debate is framed around the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit, a prison in North California designed by KMD architects which some have described as a solitary confinement unit. The podcast raises an interesting point about this prison: whilst many design features are oppressive, there are some architectural touches – such as perforated cell doors and skylights in the corridors – which are described as “good design features”.
This could perhaps raise a counter argument: in the same way that medicine’s refusal to be involved in lethal injections has not stopped executions from happening, it could be argued that without architects, prisons are at risk of being designed by people with less design skill. In other words, by refusing to design prisons themselves, architects could cause new prison designs to become even more inhumane.
So should architecture have a strict code of ethics? Does architecture have a primary goal (as clear as medicine’s aim to preserve life) that could inform such a code? Or should members of the profession be allowed to choose by themselves what they believe to be moral? And does refusing to take part in designing these prisons improve the situation, or just make it worse?

         特别鸣谢翻译一组10号 张晓丽 提供的翻译，译稿版权归译者所有，转载请注出明处。