A Safety Sense of Ethics
I note with amusement the AIHS attempt at tackling Ethics following its disastrous foray into the discipline of Ethics in the Body of Knowledge (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/ ). I note too the Canadian Society for Safety Engineering (CSSE) proposal for an online course in Ethics. Perhaps these are the same course? Nothing like turning to engineers and the zero cult for some miseducation in Ethics. If you want to understand Ethics, don’t ask an engineer.
Of course what is predictable is that neither course tackles the essence of ethics. Interestingly, the background expertise and development of these courses is never mentioned. Neither is their any transparency in marketing, which of course is unethical. Similarly, the deontological bias of the AIHS BoK chapter on ethics is not owned nor any sense of the philosophical nature of ethics, which is unethical. Indeed, the clandestine nature of the chapter (38.3) about its deontological ethic, demonstrates that Safety hasn’t a clue about ethics.
The Safety brand of ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/what-brand-of-ethics-is-safety/) is not about ethics because its foundations are unethical (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-unethical/). If your foundation is zero, in denial of fallibility, then one’s position on personhood is untenable and therefore unethical.
Pretty soon, all those in the zero cult will gather in Spain (http://visionzero.global/vision-zero-safety-future-congress) to once again parade zero propaganda in non-vision (https://www.visionzerosummit.com/) as if brutalism is good for you.
How predictable to preach values of objectivity, transparency and impartiality (https://www.aihs.org.au/sites/default/files/20200517%20AIHS%20Code%20of%20Ethics_editable.pdf) and then contradict these values in presentation. You can see this contradiction in lights at the next cult convention.
If you want a laugh just have a look at the language on the zero vision promotion page by Hans-Horst Konkolewsky President, International ORP Foundation and Vision Zero Ambassador: ‘At first sight it may seem impossible: all accidents, diseases and injures are preventable.’ And you don’t need to read more. More denial of fallibility, more denial of personhood and more delusion about vision. You can’t envision a sense of risk from this unethical assumption (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/envisioning-risk-seeing-vision-and-meaning-in-risk/).
If you want further laughs just download the program (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6wk9voba9yhyra2/AADmZ064R0mA1uU2VRQPTuOda?dl=0&preview=Program_16.03-ENG.pdf). Perhaps you can go to the session entitled ‘Happy Vision Zero, Guys!’ a nice little sexist way to start your day, and unethical. Of course followed later by the session ‘Female power: female role in the HSE management development’. There’s no doubt about it, when Safety does unethical contradiction it does it well. Or maybe you can view the promotion video of using a forklift with no safety precautions (http://visionzero.global/why-vision-zero).
Then you could attend the session entitled ‘Pioneer’s time: success stories of the companies supporting Vision Zero’ or ‘Staff training in “imperfect” conditions’ or ‘Root causes of industrial accidents’ all sustaining the idea that zero is not possible. You couldn’t make this s*&t up. Of course, promoting zero is the opposite of being a visionary and pioneer. If you want to humanize safety then the first thing to go must be zero!
However, there is a ethical and successful alternative to zero.
If you want to read about pioneering in safety then read the story of ‘It Works, A New Approach to Safety’. (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/it-works-a-new-approach-to-risk-and-safety/ ). This is the story of an organization that dumped zero and then safety improved.