I was in Amsterdam last week and I experienced two profound lessons in Ethics and within 10 minutes.

The first one came from a taxi driver. He was speaking about the ongoing situation in the Middle East and how it has changed his perception about life in Dubai.

‘Everyone used to think Dubai was a very safe place. If you forget your phone in a restaurant, someone will find you and they will come and hand it to you. But look what is happening now. I’m not convinced if this place is safe anymore.’

As the taxi driver spoke, I received a text from a friend in the Middle East who shared this Public Safety Alert from the Ministry of Information.

‘Due to current situation, a potential missile threat, seek immediate shelter in the closest secure building, and to steer away from windows, doors, and open areas. Await for further instructions.’

And then my friend wrote: ‘One large explosion now as we text’.

Two profound lessons in Ethics within 10 minutes.

From the taxi driver, we learn the limits of Behaviourist Ethics:

Behaviourist Ethics (reflected in the language of behaviour-based safety) means:

•  Humans can be controlled through fear and rewards (carrots and sticks);
• There is no such thing like consciousness. Humans are merely programmable objects;
• Programmable objects can be trained and retrained (to ‘behave’ as we expect them.

The friend from the Middle East taught me to question the Ethics of Deontology (Kantian Ethics).

Deontology, on the other hand, tells us:

• We live in a predictable world governed by Natural Laws;
•  Natural Laws (otherwise termed as rules and processes) can be applied universally in all situations;
• We must get better at following the rules.

The Ethics of Deontology and Behaviourism dominate the risk and safety models, frameworks and techniques (both old and new).

Both Deontology and Behaviourism are subsets of Material worldview. And there is nothing wrong with that. But not knowing that we are trapped in a material worldview is problematic. Not knowing that only those risks that can be controlled and counted matter is problematic.

Not knowing that it is ultimately perception, subjectivity, trust, helping, caring, listening, understanding, conversations, relationship, fallibility, faith, hope, prayers, greetings, wishes, rituals, trade-offs and paradoxes that come to our rescue is problematic.

I’m wondering if it’s time to question the Ethics of Risk and broaden our worldview?