It is almost a commonplace to state that all design is political. If nothing else, it is often added, because everything is political.

Regarding ethics, the situation could not be more distinct: there are frequent appeals for the development of an ethics of design. Ethics is almost always placed outside of design, in the future or in alternative practices.

The problem is that design already has its own ethics. It is, in itself, a form of ethics.

When someone trains to become a designer, they are not limited to notions of how to compose elements, deal with typography, or organize their time and resources. An important part of learning, perhaps the most inherent, relates to professional ethics. It not only dictates how the designer behaves but also determines that, through their behavior, they are truly a designer.

This ethics determines the kind of work a designer can do, the people and institutions they can work for, how and where they should practice, the protocol for presenting their work to clients, and how to integrate aspiring designers into the profession.

This code of ethics extends to formal choices. Vibrant colors and skewed shapes signify “designer as author,” created for the designer themselves rather than for the client. Rigorous grids signify the dedicated fulfillment of a service.

The designer sets aside their individuality. They must be invisible. They do not work for themselves but for the client or for the betterment of society. They always work, with few exceptions, for a client. They practice as freelancers or within a design company. These and other maxims constitute an undeclared code of conduct, a deontology.

If a designer violates or appears to violate this code, they are labeled as “an artist,” and their design is demoted to art or theory. Symbolically, they lose their professional status.

The reason why it is so difficult to introduce ethical proposals into design is not due to the absence of ethics but rather the way this activity defines itself ethically from the very beginning.