One of the many things we will explore in our Philosophy and Risk workshops (https://safetyrisk.net/philosophy-for-risk-and-safety-free-workshops/) will be what people believe and why they believe it. We do this, not to cast judgement on belief but to understand belief, faith and worldviews. There are many positive outcomes that emerge from such a study. Understanding others, whether one agrees with them or not, it valuable in helping understand one’s own beliefs.

In the risk and safety world, many beliefs and values are hidden in methods/processes that are never surfaced. Indeed, some even think that methods and processes are objective, impartial and neutral, they are not. Yet, we see this paraded in the AIHS non-code of ethics:

Then this is paraded about as if Safety has the issue of professionalism covered? A code of ethics is a systematic statement that hides moral assumptions and beliefs, then the ‘code’ and its hidden assumptions about power, authority, people and organising are hidden, enabling the brutalism of people in the name of good. And what is that good? Safety!

When safety is made the over-riding purpose of an ethic then over-riding persons becomes its product. We saw this exemplified in the work of Hopkins that argues that Safety has the right to over-ride the rites of others (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/).

Sorry folks but that belief is just safety colonialism/imperialism. No! Safety does not over-ride the rites and rights of persons.

 If you want to see an intelligent code of ethics, why not access a code from a profession such as nursing or a social work to find out what a real code of ethics looks like.

 So, what does Safety do with ethics? It imagines that values don’t compete and that moral decision making is determined by whether something achieves a safe outcome. Then Safety trots out amateurs in ethics to construct a code of ethics to suit its morality, all endorsed by engineers who lecture for safety in ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/assp-the-ethics-amateurs/). Then repeat the word ‘professional’ hundreds of times and that somehow makes the industry professional.

The same epistemic trespass (https://safetyrisk.net/epistemic-trespassing-and-safety/) is used across the safety sector to endorse a host of beliefs and values that are not challenged, because they suit the safety narrative. Then when someone finally challenges a belief embedded in a slogan what does Safety do? It says the slogan means something else to what it says. I see this all the time with HOP trying to skirt around the ignorance of ‘blame fixes nothing’ or with Zero trying to skirt around the brutalism of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). In the end, these so-called gurus filling up their bank accounts, concocting new slogans they call principles, keep coming up with more and more linguistic gymnastics to the applause of an industry that lacks critical thinking.

In the end what Safety does is, make language meaningless, so that any belief or value is hidden in its preferred spin and propaganda.

I saw some nonsense the other day about safety as an egg and safety being in a ‘green zone’ all the while ignoring the meaning of metaphor and the values/beliefs underpinning this spin.

When we use the word ‘belief’, ‘values’ or ‘faith’ we don’t infer anything religious. None of these words are the sole claim of religious or spiritual thought. I can have faith that my old car will start on a cold Canberra morning or I can believe that the risk matrix is an effective tool for risk assessment. Or, I can believe The Matrix is real (https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/the-matrix-simulation).

The real question is, what is the moral and ethical outcome of such beliefs and values?

One thing we work in our workshops on Philosophy and Risk is understanding what values are. Values are not something one values. I can value my car, even give my car a value but my car is not a value. Similarly, I can value safety, even give it a hierarchy of importance but safety is not a value.

Values (and principles) emerge from an ethic and moral philosophy.  Values such as care, love, compassion and beneficence can all be enacted. These are values. You can read a common list of values here: https://www.decisionskills.com/list-of-values.html but we should not confuse values with things we value. Values need to be able to be enacted (https://nissenbaum.tech.cornell.edu/papers/values_and_valuing.pdf) otherwise they are simply something we value not a value.

In the world of safety where checklists reign, beliefs and values are hidden in the checklist. The values and beliefs of the designer are hidden in the method. Few use skills of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to dig deeper to find out what the fundamental belief and values are.

What we do in these workshops is we take the time to do just that. Interrogate and deconstruct what beliefs and values are embedded in what Safety does. It is both rewarding but challenging. It’s a tough question: why do you do what you do? But for those in the workshops who have taken the time out to travel this road less travelled, it brings enrichment and wisdom.