When we see the discourse of ‘psychosocial hazards’ we never hear anything about an ethic of personhood or moral harm. Yet, moral harm is a profoundly damaging part of the safety industry. Most often the industry is ignorant of moral harm because the industry has next to no emphasis on Ethics, moral philosophy or safety as a ‘wicked problem’.

What we see in the AIHS Code of Ethics, exemplifies the most absurd ideas of objectivity and impartiality. Such beliefs are naïve in the extreme and completely ignore that fact that most values compete with each other and that most decision making in safety is characterised by moral dilemmas. Indeed, all law and regulation is interpreted. There is no objective and impartial safety.

One of the most effective ways to tackle any moral dilemma is to be practiced in ethics. But, a foundation of ethics is simply not in any safety curriculum. Even if there is some attention to ethics it is naïve and immature as we see with the AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics or as we see attempted in the ASSP. How on earth can one claim to be professional when ethics is so poorly presented?

Moral injury and harm is:

Moral injury (MI) is a potential clinical problem characterized by functionally impairing moral emotions, beliefs, and behaviors as well as adverse beliefs about personal or collective humanity and life’s meaning and purpose. MI can arise from personal transgressive acts or from being a victim of or bearing witness to others’ inhumanity.

https://www.dav.org/wp-content/uploads/Litz-and-Walker-2025-Annual-Review-of-Clinical-Psychology.pdf

Moral injury most often occurs when one is asked to do something to others that dehumanises them or contradicts one’s personal moral beliefs. For example. one may not believe in zero harm but is required under zero harm policy to inflict pain or harm onto another because some harm was caused in thre workplace. In zero harm organisations this kind of moral injury is common.

How fascinating that James Reason made famous the idea of violation in safety but never explored the most important violation, the violation of personhood!

Our zero harm survey shows conclusively that 86% of people who work in safety do NOT believe in zero. Indeed, 80% of all respondents (https://safetyrisk.net/take-the-zero-survey/) believe that the ideology of zero is harmful (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). Yet, zero remains the dominant mantra for the safety industry (https://visionzero.global/).

Any system based upon an expectation of seeking perfection from fallible people must brutalise them.

Similarly, any system based on injustice (eg. blame fixes nothing) builds into any outcomes, the silences of such a slogan which is, moral harm to others. This is why this meme/slogan is so poorly considered and at is source so immaturely concocted.

Moral harm and injury are neither measurable nor observable, but are felt by people when the demands of their work puts them in conflict with their moral beliefs. These are rarely disclosed in safety. This often happens in safety when people are harmed in the name of ‘good’ and ‘care’. Indeed, the focus on ‘psychosocial hazards’ rather than psychosocial risks is also another source of moral harm.

The beginning of knowing how moral injury is caused, starts with an ethic of personhood. Unfortunately, this kind of language is not spoken in safety.

Just because one can’t see or measure something doesn’t mean there is no harm. Indeed, moral injury can be far more damaging and harmful than physical harm.

If you do want to learn more about the ethics of risk and moral harm you can start a positive and constructive enquiry here: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/