Abstract
Designers are regularly confronted with conflicting values in design: different values select different design options as best. This contribution deals with how one can deal with such value conflicts in design for values. A characterization of value conflict in design is given, and the notion is compared with the notion of moral dilemmas. It is further argued that value conflicts in design entail a kind of multi-criteria decision problems to which Arrow’s impossibility theorem applies. This theorem says that there is no procedure to aggregate scores on individual criteria (values) into an overall score unless one is willing to violate one of more minimally reasonable conditions for any such an aggregation procedure. Six methods to deal with value conflicts (cost-benefit analysis, direct trade-offs, maximin, satisficing, judgment, and innovation) are discussed. Three of these avoid Arrow’s theorem by assuming a form of value commensurability, although they may be too informationally demanding and have other disadvantages as well. The other three are non-optimizing methods that do not result in one best solution and therefore do not entirely solve the value conflict, although they are a way forward in some respects. In conclusion, an approach that combines the several methods is proposed as a way to deal with cases of conflicting moral values in design and which avoids many of the disadvantages of the single methods.