There seems a naïve belief in the safety industry, that if one is in this industry, one is automatically morally good. Indeed, that safety in itself is a moral good. So, as long as one professes safety, this becomes a cover for all that follows as a determination of a moral good. Indeed, many of the ideas presented in safety, despite good intentions, result in dangerous moral outcomes.

Helping save people from harm, helping others tackle risk and being occupied with safety, does NOT automatically deem something moral. It is what accompanies such activity that makes something either morally or ethically ‘good’.

Indeed, many of the cons, spin, marketing and promotions of Safety, including its slogans, semiotics, messages and discourse are harmful and dangerous. The ideology of Zero is an example (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). Another is the Bradley Curve that asserts that it is the ‘natural instinct’ of humans to harm. This is projected against all the evidence that the opposite is the case. The natural instinct of humans is to preserve and sustain life (allostasis).

Any system of thought that insists on perfection from fallible people has a trajectory of brutalism.

The place to start is to realise, that no declaration, message or process in safety is morally neutral. There is no objectivity or impartiality, regardless of the what the AIHS tell you (https://safetyrisk.net/what-principles-guide-your-safety-ethic/).

Indeed, the promotion of the safety as objective is both unethical, harmful and delusional.

The reality of being human and in being ethical in practice, is being transparent and up front about subjectivity. This lack of transparency about underlying ethics, moral assumptions and hidden motivations seems to have turned into an art form in safety. The place to start in being ethically transparent is having a conversation about power and the use of power. How remarkable the issue of power in not discussed in the AIHS Body of Knowledge chapter on ethics!

Very few, if any of these so called ‘safety thought leaders’ running around the place, making money out of products and slogans, are ever transparent about motive or transparency regarding their ethic. Indeed, much of the discourse associated with the selling safety or products and slogans is hidden behind this naïve idea that whatever done in the name of safety must be morally good.

A good place to start by digging deeper is to question what is going on (https://safetyrisk.net/the-binary-seduction-in-safety/).

Indeed, digging deeper into critical thinking, deconstruction and Critical Discourse Analysis should be an ethical and moral responsibility of safety. What is the point of running around the place with the safety slogan or zero harm whilst at the same time morally harming others? (https://safetyrisk.net/the-moral-harm-of-safety-work/) What is the moral outcome of stating that ‘blame fixes nothing’? Who is being harmed by the naïve slogan ‘context drives behaviour’? Who gets harmed when some guru sells the binary seduction, make some dollars and sets people on a trajectory of moral harm?

These are just a few questions that should be asked when Safety stands up in front of a group and sells a slogan, product or message.

Critical questioning of Safety is not a bad thing, it is the foundation of seeking moral and ethical meaning. This is why a foundation in ethics (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-ethics-of-risk/) is the beginning of being professional.