What Brand of Ethics is Safety?

 

What Brand of Ethics is Safety?

This last fortnight in my city Canberra, has seen an explosion of allegations of rape in the corridors of power, the Australian Parliament . What has come to the surface should be no surprise to researchers in ethics. At the heart of the corridors of power is the problem of politics and power, and how this creates trade-offs in gender relations, privileging masculinist power and violence.

The first point of any study in ethics is to understand the difference between: an ethic, morality, a code of ethics and Ethics. If you are looking for such an understanding, then don’t go to the AIHS Chapter on Ethics, you won’t find anything of this nature. Indeed, the AIHS chapter blends all four as if they are one and the same.

The first thing one learns upon reading this chapter on ethics is that it is NOT a study in ethics, nor about an ethic of risk. How remarkable to declare in this chapter that ethics is the foundation of professionalism and then by its obvious concession seek to publish such a chapter, not at the outset of the BoK but seven years after launching such a ‘body of knowledge’. This in itself is an indictment of where ethics is placed in the industry.

So, it is unsurprising to see that the AIHS is now offering training based on this amateurish document.

Of course, at the start of this chapter is a prologue about International Network of Safety and Health Practitioner Organisations (INSHPO). How fascinating to anchor the chapter to INSHPO, and yet make no reference to the ideology of zero anywhere in the text? How interesting to write a document of such deontological indoctrination on:

1.     Do the right thing,

2.     Check your gut and,

3.     Duty.

And have no discussion of: personhood, fallibility, philosophy, trade-offs in ethics, zero ideology and by-products of ethical theory. How amusing this code of silence about the global mantra for the safety industry and yet here it is, splurged for the future safety congress in May 2021. The AIHS is signed up to all of this but doesn’t want anyone to make the connection between zero ideology and its unethical outcome – brutalism.

One of the best ways to run a clandestine campaign and give power to the powerful and to zero, is to advocate duty and silence, and we see this from events in Canberra recently. The power of absolutes, duty, compliance and power are the strategies that help foster rape and violence against women.

The trouble is, accepting this AIHS chapter as somehow an authoritative piece on ethics is dangerous. The sector would be better informed if this chapter was withdrawn. The attributions, assertions, omissions and assumptions in this document are simply unethical. The three pronged outcomes of the chapter of:

1.     Do the right thing,

2.     Check your gut and,

3.     Duty

Lay a wonderful foundation for accepting violation as the norm. Of course, one needs a discussion of personhood to know what has been violated and there is neither a discussion of either in the chapter on ethics. Any form of violence and abuse of power is determined by what aspects of personhood have been violated. At the heart of the abuse and violation reported this week in Canberra we have young vulnerable people exploited under the rubric of:

1.     Do the right thing,

2.     Check your gut and,

3.     Duty

Such a deontological foundation is a classic hotbed for the sustaining of abuse under the power of compliance and the politicization of power. Only safety could hold a conference on politics and power and not discuss either.

Of course there is no discussion in the AIHS BoK chapter on the ethic of, nature of and, understanding power, – just one more elephant in a crowded room.

One of the powerful powers of the abuser is secrecy by omission and silence. Make a great noise about righteousness and mask underlying problems, whilst crusading about legislation and government. At the heart of the problems in Canberra is not just some simplistic label of ‘cultural toxicity’ (https://theconversation.com/to-fix-the-culture-in-canberra-we-need-to-take-a-sledgehammer-to-male-privilege-155553) but rather a complete code of silence about elephants in the room e.g. male privilege, deontological ethics, the power of the powerful, cultural naivety, misogyny, entitlement, social justice and political ignorance. BTW, there is no feminist theory of risk and safety articulated anywhere, nor any discussion of feminist ethics or care ethics in the AIHS BoK on Ethics.

An ethic is about philosophical foundations and must start with a theory of personhood. One will never know what has been violated or abused unless one has some idea of who is a human person. Morse so, acknowledging the fallibility and vulnerability of persons is foundational to ethics. Both must be denied by the ideology of zero. None of this is mentioned in the AIHS chapter.

Then there are codes of ethics, the outcome of a moral and ethical philosophy. A code of ethics sometimes hides an unspoken ethic (social contract), but in this case with the AIHS chapter, we know what that masculinist deontological ethic is. We also know that safety is globally identified with the zero vision. The denial of zero is clearly foundational to the AIHS discourse and yet flies in the face of the evidence (https://www.aihs.org.au/news-and-publications/news/ethics-and-health-and-safety-practice-%E2%80%93-new-courses). Look at the global news about the future congress, training, events and happenings, it’s all about zero, the foundation of brutalism.

So when we look at the AIHS Code of Ethics the incongruence is stark. Just a few questions for a start:

1.     In what way can one be honest and respectful when one’s mantra founded on the denial of fallibility and the expectation of perfection?

2.     How can one set a goal for objectivity, when all the evidence suggests that this is also an impossibility?

3.     How does the approximation of ALARP fit in with the delusions of objectivity (an impartiality) and the power of safety-in-compliance?

4.     How can one be ethical and ‘evidenced-based’ when there is no evidence that zero works? Indeed, there is more evidence that it is unethical and doesn’t work (Dekker – https://www.ccscheme.org.uk/publications/industryimage/issue41/files/assets/common/downloads/page0046.pdf )?

5.     How can one expect impartiality when the chapter on ethics itself doesn’t declare its assumptions nor philosophy and hides its secret bias behind silence on critical issues.

6.     How can one be expected to act professionally when there is no critical body of knowledge in the body of knowledge on the nature of professionalization?

7.     Where is the connection between the BoK on: ‘duty’, ‘do the right thing’ and ‘check your gut’ when none of this is mentioned in the AIHS code of ethics?

8.     How can one parade the zero vision and at the same time advocate: trust, respect and ‘resisting unreasonably interest-based pressures’?

9.     Where is the mention of: persons, humans, fallibility, vulnerability, violation and power in the code?

10. How can something advocate integrity when so much is omitted and silent in ethics within itself?

So, if one wants to learn about ‘the essence of ethics’ then it won’t be found in safety’s understanding of ethics as it currently stands. Safety has a long way to go before it could even come close to a basic understanding of the challenges of ethics and how these should be applied to an ethic of risk and safety.

If you wish to study an ethic of risk, where foundations and philosophy is not hidden but explored in open and transparent integrity, you can apply to do a module online with the Centre for Leadership and Learning in Risk (CLLR) https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/

As part of this study, we deconstruct the AIHS BoK on ethics and open up to participants the development of a professional ethic of risk.