[saraid216]

> If morality is not the point, why "should [it] be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act"? Why "design intentionally"? Why "think about the details"? Why "care about consequences"? Why "hold onto what is good"? What is the measure of good? If you answer that Bartlett is talking about aesthetics not morality, then why the fuck did you bring him up? It would not be a "similar message" at all. See feedback about listening.

Of course he was talking about morality. He simply didn't need to bring it up. He didn't need to say "there exists immoral game design"; he understood that it was not him who needed to make the value judgement, but the designer who needed to make the judgement upon himself. He was making people into better designers, rather than offering a way to critique design.

Here's another example of the point the OP is making (and this time I can link to it, since it's not in the GDC Vault): http://www.bogost.com/writing/the_bulldog_and_the_pegasus.sh... And again, morality goes unmentioned. A different thinker talks about the same thing: http://www.raphkoster.com/2010/02/18/gameifying-everything/ But of course, my knowledge is restricted to game design. I'd have more trouble citing designers outside that field, though I suspect I could find something from Luke Wroblewski or someone from 37s or something.

By his own admission, the author is not talking about morality. He is saying that "Morals ... should be used to guide design decisions rather than those design decisions being made in isolation." This is, as I have agreed repeatedly, an important point. It is also one that has been better stated without the baggage of waxing philosophical about morality.

I have no idea where you pulled aesthetics from. It's not as if aesthetics are required to be amoral (see: http://www.friesian.com/domain.htm ); isn't that part of the point of the original post? Ugliness steals away life, too, almost as much as stealing time does.