Kenrick states (Letting in the Light 2024, p. 44):

Whenever we uncritically believe that we are blameless, we deprive ourselves of the wisdom that comes from seeing ourselves either individually, or collectively as a society, for who we really are, complete with the shortcomings and ambiguities that are present in all human beings.

Our good intentions and cherished values are not always a sound guide for judging whether our actions and attitudes are well founded, and our errors can become clear to us only in retrospect, when it may be too late to reverse the harm that they might have caused to others.

What we believe and do about blame is not a simple thing. Throwing about simplistic slogan like ‘blame fixes nothing’ demonstrate extraordinary ignorance about the psychology and ethics of blame (https://safetyrisk.net/the-meaning-of-blame-thinking-beyond-the-spin-and-slogans/). But this is what Safety does best, makes up s^#t then thinks later about the by-products and trade-offs created. Once let out the box and declared a ‘principle’, it’s all set up for the safety lemmings to follow, declaring a slogan a ‘principle’ and the monetisation follows.

Blame is a deeply moral, political and a social energy that must be understood culturally, psychologically and ecologically.

At the foundation of any ethic or moral system we should find principles, values and beliefs about personhood and the nature of power. If these are not the foundation for considering the energy of blame then no amount of naïve sloganeering or linguistic gymnastics will hold any meaning.

The first thing that must be tackled in safety regarding blame is the nature of care. Care is manifest in the positive orientation to others because all relationship is moral. The key question then is: how and toward whom is your care oriented? What ethic drives one’s understanding of care? Afterall, the conquest of First Nations peoples was undertaken as ‘care for the heathens’. Sacking people who cause injury/harm is often packaged as care for safety.

The cycle of care is a peculiar thing in life. Care exists because humans are born and live as fallible, mortal, vulnerable, imperfect and fragile beings. In human living we are always becoming, there is no arrival.

So, in life we are born in need of care and as we grow we are taught by others ways to care for ourselves. Once we learn some self-care we can experience some sense of flourishing but always know that we are susceptible to disease, illness, loss and misfortune. This then leads us back to the need for care and care-giving. In such times, time stands still whilst we learn to be cared for. Indeed, the cycle of life ends when we age and need care. This is what makes like precarious.

To speak zero to human persons demonstrates an extreme lack of care.

In Ancient Greek, the word mérimna defines care as the action of providing everything necessary to preserve life. Heidegger argued that care was about ‘being-there‘. St Paul captured it well when he stated in his first letter to the Galatians: ‘Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ’. What a fascinating concept this ‘law’, that had nothing to do with Law.

It is from here that we associate care with nurture, being present and being-for others.

However, being oriented towards others raises the issue of what we consider to be in their best interests and what they consider to be in their own best interests. This is captured the principles of beneficence and autonomy.

This is why it is critical to have a clearly articulated ethic and sense of moral meaning well before we think about what happens in blame.

Kenrick comments (Letting in the Light 2024, p. 47)

Essentially, these aspects of personal autonomy are matters of justice. When we understand justice as being a collective social phenomenon that is deeply tied to the values of a civil society then we will understand that harm will result whenever we turn a blind-eye to the unjust treatment of particular persons or groups because it has suited our interests to do so.

We see this self-interest in the slogans of HOP. With no clear foundation in ethics, throw out some populist slogans, develop a following and follow the money.

However, when you know that blame fixes things, you reject the immoral suggestions of such a slogan because you care for others. The problem is not blame but how it is exercised.

I’ve been married for 52 years and have four children and let me tell you, the last thing that makes sense in a family is that ‘blame fixes nothing’. Believing one is blameless is the rejection of care for the other. Acknowledging blame is the beginning of facilitating forgiveness, growth, maturation and wisdom. Giving and receiving blame is central to learning.

Projecting blamelessness is an expression of a lack of care for others. As Kenrick made clear, projections of blamelessness are a rejection of the principle of justice, autonomy and care. What the nonsense slogan of HOP does is encourage what Kenrick calls ‘turning a blind eye’ to injustice and personhood.

The fact that we exist as fallible, mortal, vulnerable, imperfect and fragile beings necessitate our need to give and receive care just as we give and receive blame. Indeed, care and blame are anchored to each other.

As Pope so eloquently stated in 1711: ‘to err is human, to forgive divine’. Meaning, accept human mortality and don’t place demands of the divine on human doing. Any projection of blamelessness is such an expectation.

Any projection of blamelessness demonstrates a lack of care ethics at the heart of engaging with persons in risk.