What is moral and immoral in trying to change people's behaviors

今天我們要來談談道德勸説

by using technology and using design?

當我們試著用科技和設計

And I don't know what you expect,

來改變人們的行爲時

but when I was thinking about that issue,

這之間道德的界限在哪裏？

I early on realized what I'm not able to give you are answers.

我不知道你們的期待是什麽

I'm not able to tell you what is moral or immoral,

但當我在想這個問題時

because we're living in a pluralist society.

我很早就理解到

My values can be radically different from your values,

我是沒有答案的

which means that what I consider moral or immoral based on that

我無法告訴你什麽是道德或不道德

might not necessarily be what you consider moral or immoral.

因爲我們活在一個多元化的社會

But I also realized there is one thing that I could give you,

我和你的價值觀

and that is what this guy behind me gave the world --

可能極端地不同

Socrates.

也就是說我判斷道德的標準

It is questions.

和你的標準不見得一樣

What I can do and what I would like to do with you

不過我知道 我可以給你的

is give you, like that initial question,

就是我背後這個人

a set of questions to figure out for yourselves,

蘇格拉底

layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

所告訴這世界的 -- 那就是問題

getting at the core of what you believe is moral or immoral persuasion.

我想給你們

And I'd like to do that with a couple of examples of technologies

像開頭的問題一樣

where people have used game elements to get people to do things.

一連串的問題

So it's at first a very simple, very obvious question

讓我們一起來探討

I would like to give you:

像剝洋蔥一樣

What are your intentions if you are designing something?

一層又一層的剝掉

And obviously, intentions are not the only thing,

最後達到你價值信仰的核心

so here is another example for one of these applications.

也就是道德和不道德的分界

There are a couple of these kinds of Eco dashboards right now --

我要提出幾個科技上的例子

dashboards built into cars --

説明人們如何用遊戲的元素

which try to motivate you to drive more fuel-efficiently.

來使其他人做事

This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

所以我要給你的第一個

where your driving behavior is compared with the driving behavior

十分簡單明顯的問題：

of other people,

當你在設計一樣東西時 你最初的用意是什麽？

so you can compete for who drives a route the most fuel-efficiently.

很明顯地 光有用意不能解釋一切

And these things are very effective, it turns out --

這裡有另外一個例子

so effective that they motivate people to engage in unsafe driving behaviors,

現在有所謂的環保儀表板

like not stopping at a red light,

這些裝在車上的儀表板

because that way you have to stop and restart the engine,

會激發你去想怎樣開車才更省油

and that would use quite some fuel, wouldn't it?

像這個是Nissan的MyLeaf

So despite this being a very well-intended application,

在這上面你可以看到

obviously there was a side effect of that.

你和他人的駕駛方式的比較

Here's another example for one of these side effects.

所以你可以和其他人比賽

Commendable: a site that allows parents to give their kids little badges

看誰油用得最少

for doing the things that parents want their kids to do,

結果發現這個儀表板十分的厲害

like tying their shoes.

厲害到可以讓人們爲了省油

And at first that sounds very nice,

反而去採取不安全的駕駛行爲

very benign, well-intended.

像闖紅燈等等的

But it turns out, if you look into research on people's mindset,

因爲紅燈時你得停下來再重新啓動

caring about outcomes,

這會花費更多的汽油，不是嗎？

caring about public recognition,

所以，雖然這個程式的用意是好的

caring about these kinds of public tokens of recognition

但大家都看得出來這有個副作用

is not necessarily very helpful

這裡還有個有關副作用的例子

for your long-term psychological well-being.

Commendable （網站名）

It's better if you care about learning something.

在這個網站上爸爸媽媽可以給予一些小圖章

It's better when you care about yourself

來獎賞他們的小孩的行爲

than how you appear in front of other people.

像聽話綁鞋帶之類的

So that kind of motivational tool that is used actually, in and of itself,

一開始這主意聼起來不錯

has a long-term side effect,

十分聰明也用意良好

in that every time we use a technology

但結果你如果去看人類心理的研究

that uses something like public recognition or status,

像這樣在意結果

we're actually positively endorsing this

在意被公衆認可

as a good and normal thing to care about --

和這些代表認可的實體符號

that way, possibly having a detrimental effect

對于長期的心理健康

on the long-term psychological well-being of ourselves as a culture.

並沒有什麼幫助

So that's a second, very obvious question:

但如果你自發地去學習

What are the effects of what you're doing --

自己來關心自己

the effects you're having with the device, like less fuel,

而不是關心自己呈現的外像

as well as the effects of the actual tools you're using

才會有更積極的作用

to get people to do things --

所以這種激勵他人的工具在其本質上

public recognition?

有長期的副作用

Now is that all -- intention, effect?

每一次當我們使用

Well, there are some technologies which obviously combine both.

這種牽涉到公共認可或地位的科技時

Both good long-term and short-term effects

我們其實也就正向地認可說

and a positive intention like Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

這些是該去注意的好事情

where the whole point of that application is --

這麽一來在長期地來説

well, we're usually so bombarded with constant requests by other people,

會對我們心理的狀態有負面的影響

with this device,

第二個很明顯的問題是

you can shut off the Internet connectivity of your PC of choice

你的所作所爲有什麽影響？

for a pre-set amount of time,

你使用一個裝置帶來的影響

to actually get some work done.

譬如說減少耗油

And I think most of us will agree that's something well-intended,

或是透過使用該裝置

and also has good consequences.

來使別人做事而帶來的效果

In the words of Michel Foucault,

也就是公共認可

it is a "technology of the self."

這是用意還是影響？

It is a technology that empowers the individual

事實上有些科技

to determine its own life course,

結合了兩者

to shape itself.

長期和短期的正面影響

But the problem is, as Foucault points out,

結合了正面的用意 像Fred Stutzman's Freedom,

that every technology of the self

這個程式的用處在於

has a technology of domination as its flip side.

我們不是常常被

As you see in today's modern liberal democracies,

電話和其他人的請求疲勞轟炸嗎

the society, the state, not only allows us to determine our self,

有了這個裝置你就可以

to shape our self,

把網路和你的個人電腦関掉一段時間

it also demands it of us.

讓你可以專心完成一些事

It demands that we optimize ourselves,

我們大部分的人會同意

that we control ourselves,

這個的用意是好的

that we self-manage continuously,

而產生的結果也是好的

because that's the only way in which such a liberal society works.

用Michel Foucault （法國現代哲學家）的話來説

These technologies want us to stay in the game

“那是個自我的科技”

that society has devised for us.

那是個能激勵個人

They want us to fit in even better.

來決定自己的生活路綫

They want us to optimize ourselves to fit in.

和塑造自己

Now, I don't say that is necessarily a bad thing;

但是問題在於

I just think that this example points us to a general realization,

如同 Foucault 所指出的

and that is: no matter what technology or design you look at,

任何一個自我的科技

even something we consider as well-intended

在其背後都有一支配的科技

and as good in its effects as Stutzman's Freedom,

如你當今在現代自由的民主裏所看到的

comes with certain values embedded in it.

社會國家

And we can question these values.

不止讓我們決定自己塑造自己

We can question: Is it a good thing

同時也要求我們這麽做

that all of us continuously self-optimize ourselves

要求我們要使自己盡善盡美

to fit better into that society?

要求我們要控制我們自己

Or to give you another example:

要求我們要不斷地自我管理

What about a piece of persuasive technology

因爲這是讓自由社會能運行的

that convinces Muslim women to wear their headscarves?

唯一方法

Is that a good or a bad technology

這些科技要我們留在

in its intentions or in its effects?

社會為我們設計的遊戲裏

Well, that basically depends on the kind of values you bring to bear

我們被要求必須更完美地融入

to make these kinds of judgments.

我們必須使自己完美來融入

So that's a third question:

我不是在說這是件壞事

What values do you use to judge?

我只是覺得這個例子

And speaking of values:

為我們指出了一般性的領悟

I've noticed that in the discussion about moral persuasion online

也就是不管什麽設計或是科技

and when I'm talking with people,

或是我們覺得用意和影響都好的東西

more often than not, there is a weird bias.

像 Stutzman's Freedom

And that bias is that we're asking:

都會有一些内定的價值

Is this or that "still" ethical?

我們可以對這些價值存疑

Is it "still" permissible?

我們可以問：不斷地要求我們自己

We're asking things like:

做到盡善盡美來進一步融入社會

Is this Oxfam donation form,

這是一件好事嗎？

where the regular monthly donation is the preset default,

再擧另一個例子

and people, maybe without intending it,

例如一個勸説穆斯林婦女

are encouraged or nudged into giving a regular donation

戴頭巾的科技

instead of a one-time donation,

就其用意和影響來説

is that "still' permissible?

這是好還是壞的科技？

Is it "still" ethical?

這個其實是決定在

We're fishing at the low end.

你做出這樣的判斷時

But in fact, that question, "Is it 'still' ethical?"

基於什麽樣的價值？

is just one way of looking at ethics.

所以第三個問題是

Because if you look at the beginning of ethics in Western culture,

你作判斷時基於的價值是什麽？

you see a very different idea of what ethics also could be.

談到價值

For Aristotle, ethics was not about the question,

我注意到在網路上討論道德勸説時

"Is that still good, or is it bad?"

或我和人們談話時

Ethics was about the question of how to live life well.

常常會有個奇怪的偏差

And he put that in the word "arête,"

這個偏差就是

which we, from [Ancient Greek], translate as "virtue."

我們會問這還是符合道德的嗎？

But really, it means "excellence."

這是否還是被允許的？

It means living up to your own full potential as a human being.

我們會問 譬如說

And that is an idea that, I think,

Oxfam（慈善組織）的捐款單上

Paul Richard Buchanan put nicely in a recent essay,

預設的捐款頻率是設為每個月

where he said, "Products are vivid arguments

一般人在不注意的情況下

about how we should live our lives."

會被引導至每月定期捐款

Our designs are not ethical or unethical

而不是一次性捐款

in that they're using ethical or unethical means of persuading us.

這是可允許的嗎？

They have a moral component

這是道德的嗎？

just in the kind of vision and the aspiration of the good life

我們舉出的是極端的例子

that they present to us.

但事實上這個問題

And if you look into the designed environment around us

“這還道德嗎？”

with that kind of lens,

只是另一個看道德的方式

asking, "What is the vision of the good life

因爲如果你看看西方文化裏

that our products, our design, present to us?",

道德的起源

then you often get the shivers,

你會看到

because of how little we expect of each other,

道德也會有很不同的面貌

of how little we actually seem to expect of our life,

對亞裏士多德而言

and what the good life looks like.

道德不單只是“是或不是”的問題

So that's a fourth question I'd like to leave you with:

道德還是如何活得好

What vision of the good life do your designs convey?

他用了arete這個字

And speaking of design,

在古希臘文裏被翻譯成道德

you'll notice that I already broadened the discussion,

但事實上應該解釋為優秀

because it's not just persuasive technology that we're talking about here,

意思是將你的身為人類的才能

it's any piece of design that we put out here in the world.

發揮到極致

I don't know whether you know

而在最近的一篇散文裏

the great communication researcher Paul Watzlawick who, back in the '60s,

Paul Richard Buchanan很適切地提到

made the argument that we cannot not communicate.

產品是用來説明我們

Even if we choose to be silent, we chose to be silent,

該如何生活的生動的論點

and we're communicating something by choosing to be silent.

我們的設計不管是否使用道德的論點來勸説

And in the same way that we cannot not communicate,

這都無關道德

we cannot not persuade:

在它們展現給我們的方式裏

whatever we do or refrain from doing,

在它們對好的生活方式的洞察力和啓發裏

whatever we put out there as a piece of design, into the world,

它們都有一個道德的部分

has a persuasive component.

而且如果你透過這樣的鏡頭

It tries to affect people.

來檢視我們所設計的環境

It puts a certain vision of the good life out there in front of us,

並問道“我們的產品和設計要呈現給我們的

which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

好的生活的觀點是什麽？“

the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

那你會不寒而慄

No matter whether we as designers intend it or not,

因爲你會發現我們對互相的期待

we materialize morality.

和對我們的生活及希望的好生活的期待

We make certain things harder and easier to do.

是如此的少

We organize the existence of people.

那麽就提到第四個問題

We put a certain vision

你的設計要帶來的

of what good or bad or normal or usual is

對好生活的洞察力是什麽？

in front of people,

談到設計

by everything we put out there in the world.

你會發現我已經將討論範圍擴大了

Even something as innocuous as a set of school chairs

因爲我們談得不止是勸服的科技

is a persuasive technology,

那還可以是這世上任何的設計

because it presents and materializes a certain vision of the good life --

我不曉得你知不知道

a good life in which teaching and learning and listening

偉大的溝通學大師 Paul Watzlawick

is about one person teaching, the others listening;

早在60年代就提出說

in which it is about learning-is-done-while-sitting;

我們無法不溝通

in which you learn for yourself;

即使我們選擇沉默

in which you're not supposed to change these rules,

即便沉默，我們還是用沉默在溝通

because the chairs are fixed to the ground.

如果我們不能不溝通的話，同理可知

And even something as innocuous as a single-design chair,

我們就無法不勸說

like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

不管我們做一件事或是不做一件事

is a persuasive technology,

在這世上

because, again, it communicates an idea of the good life:

所有我們的設計

a good life -- a life that you, as a designer, consent to by saying,

都帶有勸説的一部分

"In a good life, goods are produced as sustainably or unsustainably

要來試著影響人們

as this chair.

它將一定的美好生活的觀點

Workers are treated as well or as badly

呈現在我們面前

as the workers were treated that built that chair."

正如 Peter-Paul Verbeek

The good life is a life where design is important

荷蘭的科技哲學家所言

because somebody obviously took the time and spent the money

身為設計師不管我們有意或無意

for that kind of well-designed chair;

我們將道德實體化

where tradition is important,

我們將一些事變得更難也更容易

because this is a traditional classic and someone cared about this;

我們組織人們的生存

and where there is something as conspicuous consumption,

透過我們設計出來的東西

where it is OK and normal to spend a humongous amount of money

我們將一些判定好壞異常的觀點

on such a chair,

擺在人們的眼前

to signal to other people what your social status is.

就連一組學校的座椅這麽平常的東西

So these are the kinds of layers, the kinds of questions

也是一種勸説的科技

I wanted to lead you through today;

因爲這展現了也實體化了

the question of: What are the intentions that you bring to bear

一定的美好生活的觀點

when you're designing something?

在這個美好生活裏的教學聽課

What are the effects, intended and unintended, that you're having?

定義為是一個人教 一群人聼

What are the values you're using to judge those?

學要坐著學

What are the virtues, the aspirations

是為你自己而學

that you're actually expressing in that?

而不該去改變規則

And how does that apply,

因爲椅子是固定在地上

not just to persuasive technology,

即使是一張無辜的名家設計的椅子

but to everything you design?