Mercato di Rialto, Venezia

Voices in the market square debating MOSE's future.

Venice Market · Ethics

Step into a morning conversation on what is right for MOSE.

It's a bright morning in the main market square in Venice. Around you, people chat over espresso, tourists grab selfies by the canal and vendors sell a variety of fresh fruits. The square feels alive, full of different voices, choices, and ways of seeing the world.

As you wander through the crowd, four people catch your attention. Each seems ready to share a different perspective on what it means to make the "right" decision.

In this square, these four voices are sharing their opinion on different views of ethics. They also heavily discuss what should be done about the regular floodings of Venice.

Who will you approach first? (You can click on who you'd like to approach)

Ethical Egoism

Henry Sidgwick

The first gentleman, Henry Sidgwick, believes that doing what's best for yourself is the most ethical path. Looking after your own interests first is not selfish but natural and necessary. Ethical Egoism, he explains, holds that an action is morally right if it advances the self-interest of the decision-maker. In this view, the designer's or authority's own preferences take priority over those of others, much like the MOSE project, which was designed to protect Venice itself from flooding and preserve the city's long-term security.

Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham

Another, Jeremy Bentham, thinks the goal is to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Ethics is about outcomes and collective well-being. His Utilitarian approach judges actions by their consequences and aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being for as many people as possible, similar to how the MOSE project seeks to safeguard the lives, homes, and livelihoods of Venice's residents.

Rights Perspective

Socrates

A third, named Socrates, insists that every person has basic rights that should never be violated, no matter the situation. The Rights Perspective, as he describes it, emphasizes that people possess inherent moral rights that must be respected, regardless of potential benefits or harms to others, reminding us that large projects like MOSE must consider citizens' rights and environmental protections, not just efficiency or cost.

Justice Perspective

John Rawls

Lastly, a fourth named John Rawls focuses on fairness, on justice, equality, and ensuring that everyone is treated with respect and balance. The Justice Perspective centers on the fair and equitable distribution of both benefits and burdens among all stakeholders, reflecting debates about MOSE's impact on different communities, from fishermen to city residents, and ensuring that no group bears an unfair share of the consequences.

Where PBED Sits Among These Views

Let us finish by explaining the preference-based engineering design methodology (PBED). PBED is an approach that integrates the preferences and values of stakeholders into the engineering design process. The goal is to achieve a design that not only satisfies technical and operational requirements but also reflects the diverse priorities of affected groups. In the case of the MOSE barrier system, this means accounting for the needs and preferences of local residents, policymakers, environmental organizations, port authorities, and the tourism sector. By incorporating these perspectives, PBED helps align technical feasibility with societal acceptability, ensuring that the system functions not only as an engineering achievement but also as a socially responsible solution.

When comparing these ethical theories to the PBED methodology, utilitarianism appears most closely aligned. Both aim to identify the design outcome that provides the greatest benefit for the majority of stakeholders. In the case of the MOSE system, the intention is to protect the city of Venice from flooding, thereby safeguarding infrastructure, cultural heritage, and public welfare. This aligns with utilitarian reasoning, which prioritizes maximizing collective well-being. However, PBED differs in that it also explicitly considers minority stakeholder preferences, such as those of environmentalists concerned about ecosystem disruption, rather than focusing solely on aggregate benefit.

That said, PBED can also be seen as a mix of ethical perspectives. The justice perspective is partially embedded in PBED through its inclusive and participatory approach, ensuring that each stakeholder has an opportunity to voice preferences and influence design decisions. Similarly, the rights perspective is reflected in the emphasis on respecting local communities’ autonomy and their right to a safe and sustainable environment. Ethical egoism, however, contrasts sharply with PBED, as PBED rejects any design process that prioritizes the interests of a single party (e.g., a government or contractor) over others.

Regarding the positive aspects, PBED promotes transparency, inclusiveness, and trust by systematically incorporating stakeholder feedback. In the MOSE project, this approach helped balance conflicting interests, such as the need for flood protection versus the preservation of lagoon ecosystems. The iterative nature of PBED, revisiting stakeholder inputs across multiple cycles, allowed design assumptions to evolve and improve alignment between social, environmental, and technical goals. On the negative side, PBED can be time-intensive and may lead to compromises that dilute the technical optimality of the system. Moreover, unequal power dynamics between stakeholders (for instance, between policymakers and local citizens) may distort the preference aggregation process.

Overall, after conducting two PBED cycles with stakeholders and assigning them different weights, it can be concluded that PBED most closely resembles utilitarianism, as both aim to achieve the best possible outcome for the majority, while still incorporating fairness and respect for rights. The approach supports balanced decision-making for the MOSE barrier, ensuring that the protection of Venice’s citizens and heritage is achieved without neglecting environmental and social concerns. Ethical egoism remains the least aligned, as it fundamentally opposes the collective, preference-oriented ethos of PBED.