For those to whom silence speaks,
Of intricate illusions,
Be still, but never quiet;
Articulating heals the speaker.
The simplest (and most simplistic) description of an architect's role is that of a designer of the built environment. On the other end of the sophistication spectrum, we find that articulating with exact precision his or her role is elusive, since the definition of "Architecture" as a word or concept in relation to an object that allows subjective experience of itself and/or the consequences of its existence, is still rather vague. However, our simple definition, for the moment being, is sufficient. We can then see an architect as an organizer of a client's ideas and intention, or the innovator bringing forth new ideas and intentions, which in both cases needs to produce a geometric arrangement in space. The manifestation of that arrangement is inherently dependent on all the arbitrary steps made to accommodate for those initials ideas and intentions within the constraints of their external and internal circumstances. As such the starting point is crucial. Whose ideas and intentions were organized have tremendous socio-political implications.
An architect cannot lie outside social circumstances and as such none of his or her actions can avoid having an ethical significance. All design decisions, no matter how insignificant, must carry a moral weight in relation to their consequences – one might say that an unnecessary screw is wasteful therefore morally dubious regardless of its extremely low value (relative to the whole cost of the built project). For this very reason the action of sorting out of ideas and intentions prior to the design process can be scrutinized morally by itself, and somewhat independently of the specific consequences of those ideas and intentions, or their inherent moral value. This sorting decides to what extent an architect's will is "imposed" on the client, or inhabitants. Since spatial organization filters actions and opportunities (it enables some and disallows others), when an architect does not act as merely an organizer of the clients ideas an intentions, but rather as an innovator, then not only a large part of the weight of the consequences build project has on the lives of its inhabitants fall on his or her shoulders, but also that of authoritatively imposing on them a subtle kind of control, which due to the lack of awareness on the client's part (in most cases) starts bordering fraud.
To reinforce the above, a myth must be shattered, namely that innovation necessarily leads to a betterment of the human condition. Furthermore an architect's interest in innovation may or may not involve the human condition. Most times it's innovation for its own sake (or actually for the pleasure derived from it), and sometimes as a means towards fame and material reward. Either way, it is an egotistical pursuit. In other words, the architect's attitude towards creative design is as far as possible from seeking the "truth" concerning the real value of the built object in relation to the human inhabitant. The relationship of between architecture and inhabitant goes (way) beyond the usual formal, structural or aesthetic concerns, yet the real extent of its nature is neither known nor (usually) sought. And the good intended seekers never discovered it. To be fair, it is a poorly formulated question; none of the terms in the architecture-to-human problematic are well defined. What is "Architecture", and more essentially what is "Human"? Our current understanding of the world and subsequently the human constitution is incomplete, and therefore any question about the real meaning and value of a human action (such as constructing) or product (such as a built object) is ill-formulated thus un-answerable. However, suppose blind innovation eventually results in an object (or category of objects) corresponding to that fundamental architecture-human relationship; how would we, in that case, be made aware of it? Obviously we cannot analyze the object(s) using concrete conceptual tools since we don't have them. Perhaps the manifested effects on the socio-political realm would be so obvious that we'd sooner or later learn what we have discovered?