Is the Quest to Eliminate Uncertainty Morally Good?
In all my time in the risk and safety industry one of the greatest threats to risk is hubris and over confidence. These show up all the time in incident investigations.
Placing confidence in the many symbols Safety uses to give assurance is a seduction. None of the symbols Safety uses such as: the swiss-cheese, bow-tie, Heinrich pyramid, dominoes, Bradley Curve, risk matrix, hierarchy of controls etc, are based on any science or method. This is despite the fact that the word ‘science’ is often invoked in safety (eg. Heinrich), where there is none. Similarly, the word ‘professional’ is also used with no connection to an ethic or the practice of acting professionally. More so, without any skills in semiotics or ethics, Safety makes many symbols sacred and mythically true.
The only way Safety could ever be called a ‘science’ would be if it engaged in open enquiry, which it doesn’t. What we see in Safety is, the building of political territory and the listing of enemies, to keep out of ‘fortress safety’. Whilst I see all this discourse about ‘innovation’, ‘revolution’ and ‘safety science’ in safety, nothing is changing and there is no innovation. Innovation and revolution can only come about through non-compliance. If Safety really was to embrace open enquiry, it would have to engage with worldviews it rejects.
It is also fascinating to deconstruct the language Safety uses to give assurance such as: ‘do the right thing’.
And, what would that ‘right thing’ be? Whose right and wrong is one refering to? Is this the same right and wrong that is determined by the courts and legal system that resides over the Act and Regulation of an industry? So, if the Act and Regulations are the embodiment of right and wrong in safety, why do they need to be adjudicated by courts? The book by Greg Smith Proving Safety (https://www.amazon.com.au/Proving-Safety-problems-management-tyranny-ebook/dp/B0CYNVZ7H7) makes it clear, the Law and risk is a wicked problem.
Yet, when we see the noise that comes from so called ‘new views’ on safety, the final outcome is about ‘better systems’ and better ‘performance’. These are the same systems and ‘performance’ that will be used against you in a court should something go wrong. Our video series with Greg Smith Risk Conversations (https://vimeo.com/showcase/3938199) tackles this problem of confidence in safety systems and myths associated with such hubris.
The idea that Safety and its systems in themselves are objective, certain and morally good (https://safetyrisk.net/the-morality-of-safety/) is both naïve and dangerous.
We see this evidenced in how HOP declares slogans as ‘principles’ that are not. Then we get an industry that doesn’t know what ethical principle are, repeating the word ‘principles’ over and over by an industry that doesn’t know what a principle is. But this is what Safety does. It repeats mis-information over and over, just as it regurgitates sacred symbols without question, rigour or critical analysis. The by repetition, Safety makes myth into scientific truth. The same is applied where Safety ordains people as ‘gurus’ or ‘thought leaders’ who are more like snake oil salespeople.
There is nothing more lucrative than selling certainty to the safety industry.
One of the first books one should add to a safety library is Radical Uncertainty by Kay and King (https://safetyrisk.net/radical-uncertainty/). Similarly, if your safety worldview cannot mention the word ‘fallibility’, ‘mortality’ or ‘uncertainty’, then, what are you creating in your safety systems? How does one live in the dream of ‘fail safe’, ‘zero’ or ‘predicative analytics’ when such language denies the reality of human personhood? Indeed, all this language does, is make safety systems more dangerous as if a new god has been created that then must be worshipped.
- There is nothing more dangerous than putting safety methods in place and then assuming these ‘work’.
- There is nothing more dangerous than trusting a symbol as a panacea for risk.
- There is nothing more delusional than Zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/)
I often here Safety talks about itself naming a temporary outcome (safety) as a ‘value’. Safety is NOT a value but rather something one can value. A better value, would be to value uncertainty.
In our world that is full of so much volatility and ambiguity (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-investigations-are-they-vuca-bani-or-wicked/) the greatest value for Safety should be uncertainty. This is the very meaning of risk.
The key to safety, is not eliminating risk but understanding risk and knowing how to embrace it, rather than wish it away. This is what we do in SPoR. We launch into risk with different humanising methods that help tackle the wicked problem of risk.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Sloganeering, Indoctrination and Propaganda in Safety - October 17, 2026
- What No Blame Enculturates - October 17, 2026
- Book Launch: Following-Leading in Risk, A Supplement - October 16, 2026
- Fragility in Risk and Blame as a Wicked Problem - October 13, 2026
- Ultra-Safety is Un-Safety - October 12, 2026