The end justifies the means. In other words, if the final result is what is desired, then any means of getting to that result is justified. In the case of aesthetics (or lack thereof), then, this theory of consequentialism can be applied to justify ugly design. At the end of the day, if the product or element works with a bad design, it still works. Even if physically or visually unattractive, as long as it serves its purpose, then any means of achieving the final prototype/item is justified. For instance, the “ugly” teapot by Michael Graves is justified in its “ugliness” because it achieves what it is meant to be doing. On the other hand, Jacques Carelman’s teapot, which is arguably more attractive than Graves’, is not effective – so we can’t really say that its beauty is justified by its end. But then, are the ends everything? Should one forfeit beauty for the sake of usability? Not always, as shown through the author’s very own collection. Obviously, a lot of things need a usable and working design for the world to function. But these same things can also be taken as they are solely for their beauty. So perhaps, the ends may not matter as much. Now, the author argues that attractive design makes things easier to use, but I think we must distinguish between ugly and uneffective. The door example argues that in a in a frantic, urgent environment (i.e. a fire), one will be stressed and not thinking straight, and therefore be more likely to fumble opening a door with a bad design. But I still think that a bad design is not necessarily an ugly design. If anything, a beautiful design may be ineffective, while an ugly one may be effective. This goes back to the “ugly” teapot. Besides, how attractive can a fire exit door really be?