The Rights and Wrongs of What is Right and Wrong

How strange this industry that thinks that Safety is objective and has no interest in ethics. The very language of right and wrong invokes an ethic, methodology and ontology (theory of being). All this silly focus by S2 on positive vs negative, what goes right or what is determined to be wrong, says much more about the ignorance of the speaker than the context. For example, How does one know what is right? What, the absence of injury? Really? How is this methodology any different than traditional safety? It is the same.

The best way to understand if something is right or wrong is not by counting who is harmed. Harm is not the foundation for defining an ethic.

Of course, in Safety the best approach to writing about rights and wrongs is to ensure that the writer has no expertise in ethics. Indeed, its critical in safety to ensure that any reference to moral philosophy and ethic is avoided. Instead, what is often paraded about is just more behaviourist goop on the mechanics of systems and behaviours (https://www.shponline.co.uk/safety-management/understanding-performance-variability-in-safety-management-focusing-on-the-rights-and-wrongs/). In this way one can argue about how many angels can dance on a pin head and not discuss what matters.

Behind all this drivel about learning from what goes right is the ideology of Seligman and Positive Psychology. This is not acknowledged nor is any connection made to this by the not-so-differently group or the focus on lead indicators, as if this is some kind of radical advancement in safety.

Ethics is a wicked problem (https://safetyrisk.net/update-free-workshop-on-wicked-problems-with-matt-thorne/).

But this is of no interest to Safety that seeks to immerse itself in simplistic binary discourse of black and white and, right and wrong. A wonderful framework for Fundamentalist Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/moral-fundamentalism-in-safety/; https://safetyrisk.net/having-fun-in-safety-fundamentalism/; https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-extremism-and-fundamentalisms/; https://safetyrisk.net/safety-fundamentalism/).

There are ways of thinking that are neither back or white, right or wrong, input/output, true or false or, rational or irrational. This is a way of thinking discovered in philosophies other than Safety and its favourites – behaviourism, positivism and scientism.

There is a dialectic (Ellul) between right and wrong that Safety doesn’t want to talk about and, this dialectic holds no synthesis. This dialectic is mapped out clearly by any mandala (https://safetyrisk.net/mandala-as-a-method-for-tackling-an-ethic-of-risk-a-video/ ).

When safety gets caught up in the delusions of its own ethic, it comes up with nonsense like FRAM. As if it is somehow different, when it is not. FRAM is just more systems, outputs, behaviours, measurements, controls and performance, more of the same. Understanding persons ecologically is about none of this.

The place to start in a positive, constructive and practical way in all of this is tackling the wicked problem of Ethics (https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-unit-17/).

Of course, safety doesn’t want to do this because this might challenge its fundamentalist framework of how the world is interpreted. It may push Safety away from objects and controls to persons, helping and care. Heaven forbid.

• Bio
• Latest Posts
• More about Rob

Dr Rob Long

Expert in Social Psychology, Principal & Trainer at Human Dymensions

Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)

• Understanding the Nature of Performance and HOP - October 5, 2024
• If You Want to Know About Mental Health, Don’t Ask Safety - September 30, 2024
• Its all About Behaviours - September 20, 2024
• I Wasn’t Thinking Mr Spock - September 20, 2024
• The Seduction of Drift in Safety - September 20, 2024

PhD., MEd., MOH., BEd., BTh., Dip T., Dip Min., Cert IV TAA, MRMIA Rob is the founder of Human Dymensions and has extensive experience, qualifications and expertise across a range of sectors including government, education, corporate, industry and community sectors over 30 years. Rob has worked at all levels of the education and training sector including serving on various post graduate executive, post graduate supervision, post graduate course design and implementation programs.