Despite all the models of risk assessment in Safety, all are subjective and eclectic.

Things like the risk matrix, swiss-cheese, ALARP and Due Diligence are all premised on the subjectivity of the people conducting the risk assessment. It’s all subjective and situational. Indeed, that is the purpose of ALARP: the subjective assessment of risk according to context, the limits of evidence and the pressure of time. All of this subjective work is about ‘satisficing’ (making a satisfactory decision at the time). The best we can do in risk is work within the limits of what we know and constraints to make a decision (which may be wrong). There is no guarantee of absolute certainty in any risk assessment otherwise, the word ‘risk’ doesn’t make sense.

However, safety would like you to believe that risk assessment is absolute, that rules are certain and that ‘doing the right thing’ is black and white. This is NOT how risk assessment works.

The deontological ethic that drives the safety world is completely out of step with the realities of daily decision making about risk. Even when the AIHS (BoK Chapter on Ethics) suggests you come to a decision by ‘check your gut’ (See Figure 1. Check your Gut) such a method is anchored to the subjectivities of feelings, intuition and what Dekker (https://safetyrisk.net/is-restorative-justice-a-panacea-for-under-reporting/ ) calls ‘common-sense ethics’.

Figure 1. Check your Gut

Of course, there is no knowledge that is shared in common. There is no such thing as ‘common-sense’. There is never a time when we can assume that the person beside us thinks about and, views the world as I do. There are no two people who share the same life experience and the knowledge that comes from such experience. Making assumptions that others see the world as I do and make decisions as I do is simply dangerous.

Common-sense is a myth of Safety that supposes that knowing right from wrong is innate, objective and impartial. Eg. See the AIHS Code of Ethics that proposes that ethics is objective and impartial.  See Figure 2. AIHS Code of Ethics.

Figure 2. AIHS Code of Ethics

There is nothing more nonsensical than this code that projects the myths of objectivity and impartiality onto fallible humans. Only a bunch of amateurs in ethics could make up such stuff.

The beginning in becoming effective in risk assessment is owning up to subjectivity and the uncertainty of risk.

Humans can never be impartial or objective. The best they can do is ‘satisfice’.

The last place one should seek expertise on an ethic of risk is with the AIHS. All this amateurish stuff provides no support or guidance for people in safety who struggle each day with the subjectivities of choices to be made about risk.

And safety people know, every context is new. Every factor is not like it was last time. Every element of risk assessment is not ‘cookie cutter safety’. To suggest so is delusion.

It’s the same kind of ignorance that circulates in safety like saying ‘models don’t matter’ or ‘blame fixes nothing’. All these slogans do is perpetuate ignorance and deceive people of the need for critical thinking in risk. Slogans are not ethics but hide the ethic that underpins them. Such a lack of transparency is unethical.

The idea that a risk matrix is somehow scientific or quantitative is delusion.

Throwing up a bunch of colours and scores as if the final decision is objective, is just delusion. Have a look at the typical coloured model proposed (see Figure 3. Model of Risk Assessment)

Figure 3. Model of Risk Assessment

There’s nothing objective in any of this. All this stuff does is push the subjectivities of the real decision into the background. It’s no different that telling someone ‘do the right thing’, use ‘common-sense’ or ‘check your gut’. It’s all the same deontological mythology.

Of course, if you apply any level of critical thinking to these safety models that have been normalised you can see the Kantian ethic that underpins them, if you can think critically.

Where does this theory of ethics come from? The idea that a human can know right and wrong by intuition (‘check your gut’) comes from Immanuel Kant (https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/). The idea that humans know right from wrong in this model of ethics is anchored back to a belief that god gives humans the reason to know right from wrong. This model is expressed at Figure 4. Divine Law Ethics. Imagine that, your model of ethics matters.

Figure 4. Divine Law Ethics

No wonder safety is so obsessed with religious discourse about ‘saving lives’ (https://safetyrisk.net/the-language-of-saving-lives-doesnt-help-safety/ ) and the divine image of Zero and perfection. No wonder safety loves the language of heroes and myths of common-sense objectivity. Kant proposes that this gift of rationality comes from god and that’s how we can know what is right and wrong. What really happens is that the human belief in ethics by rationality makes human rationality god.

The trouble is, that’s not how we make decisions in reality. Our real method for making decisions is far more eclectic and dialectic.

At the time of making a decision about risk, a fallible human cannot divorce themselves from their past experience or lack of it, eliminate bias, prejudice and subjectivity, or, remove the many emotions and feelings that are anchored to the social context.

Imagining that bias, fallibility and emotions don’t exist is like denying fallibility in the ideology of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). There is no greater delusion in the risk and safety world than the denial of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/).

Once you know that the model of ethics proposed by safety is delusional you face up to the realities of risk and both change your model and your methods. Imagine that, you model in ethics matters.

This is what we offer in SPoR. A different model that works (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety-book-for-free-download/) and different methods (https://safetyrisk.net/icue-methodology-a-video/ ) that help with the subjectivities of ethical decision making. A different model and methods to the deontological model of safety ethics. And, it makes a phenomenal difference.

If you want to find out about this different ethic you can write (admin@spor.com.au) or come along to the SPoR convention and learn from others about why these models and methods matter in risk: https://safetyrisk.net/spor-convention-15-19-september-2025/