Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 5

Ethics in a World of Standards

In our journey through the landscape of modern welfare systems, we've explored how social contracts shape institutions, how guidelines transform into practice, and how different forms of knowledge interact. Each of these dimensions carries profound ethical implications. When a social worker makes a decision based on standardized guidelines while drawing on professional judgment, they're navigating complex moral terrain.

Consider our imaginary case worker Maria, a child welfare social worker facing a difficult decision about potential child removal. The case perfectly illustrates the themes we've explored:

• The social contract gives her authority to intervene in family life to protect the rights of the child (Part 2)

• National guidelines provide assessment frameworks (Part 3)

• Her professional judgment draws on tacit knowledge from years of experience (Part 4)

• Yet the ultimate decision involves weighing different forms of potential harm under fundamental uncertainty…

This case demonstrates why ethical considerations aren't just an "extra layer" on top of our previous discussions – they're fundamental to navigate between law, human judgment and theoretical knowledge. The ethical dimensions becomes especially important when clear evidence is lacking, as it often is in complex systems.

Philosophical Foundations: From Ancient Wisdom to Modern Practice

At the heart of welfare work lies a fundamental question that philosophers have grappled with since antiquity: how do we make sound decisions in complex situations where multiple values and perspectives intersect? Aristotle addressed this challenge through his concept of phronesis - a form of practical wisdom that transcends both theoretical knowledge and technical expertise. This wisdom enables practitioners to discern the unique elements of each situation while drawing on accumulated experience to determine what constitutes right action in that specific context.

This ancient insight remains profoundly relevant for contemporary welfare work. Despite our development of sophisticated systems, assessment tools, and evidence-based methods, the core challenge endures: how do we integrate systematic knowledge with the practical wisdom needed to navigate human complexity? What is good or bad? Right or wrong? To find out, we need to engage in dialogue - like the judge in the courtroom, who must weigh all facts and arguments before reaching a conclusion. This process requires both systematic analysis and the practical wisdom to understand how general principles apply in specific situations.

The evolution of Swedish child welfare illustrates this philosophical challenge perfectly. What began in the early 20th century as a moralistic endeavor focused on "protecting children from the moral decay of the working class" has transformed into a sophisticated system balancing child protection with family preservation¹. This shift reflects not just changing social attitudes, but fundamental philosophical questions about the relationship between individual rights, family autonomy and state responsibility.

Today's tension between needs-based and relationship-oriented approaches to child placement exemplifies profound philosophical issues that persist in contemporary welfare practice. I argue that the needs-based philosophy emerges from what we might call a "Machine-logic" - emphasizing formalization, standardization, and professional expertise grounded in research. This approach prioritizes early permanency decisions based on childrens rights, systematic assessment of developmental needs and risk factors, reflecting a belief in the power of professional expertise and scientific evidence to determine optimal outcomes.

In contrast, relationship-oriented philosophy stems from what we could term "Human-logic" - privileging the fundamental importance of family bonds, cultural continuity, and the intrinsic value of relationships. This perspective seeks to develop and strengthen family connections and security over time, even when circumstances are challenging. The approach recognizes the complex, often messy reality of human relationships that resist simple categorization or standardization.

How is this concerning ethics? It reflects profound questions about human development, the nature of expertise, the role of science in social decisions, and ultimately, what constitutes a child's best interests. The tension between these approaches mirrors a broader philosophical debate about how we understand humans, knowledge, truth and social relationships.

These philosophical foundations help us understand why standardized systems, while valuable, can never replace professional judgment. As Aristotle recognized, ethical practice requires the integration of multiple forms of knowledge: episteme (scientific knowledge), techne (technical skill), and phronesis (practical wisdom). In child welfare, this means combining systematic research knowledge with the practical wisdom that comes from experience, always guided by ethical reflection about what truly serves the child's best interests.

Ethics in Practice: Multiple Dimensions of Consideration

The ethical dimensions of welfare work become evident through several key considerations outlined in the ethical guidelines for social services. Here we see how Maria, in her child protection work, must navigate between multiple ethical demands²:

Service Goals and Evidence Base

When evaluating interventions, Maria must first consider how they align with fundamental welfare goals and available evidence. This means weighing immediate child protection needs against long-term family stability, while critically examining the scientific support for different options. She must also assess how interventions address specific rights and needs, not just for the child but for the entire family network. This careful balancing act requires considering both immediate impacts and potential long-term consequences.

Core Ethical Values

At the heart of Maria's work lie fundamental ethical principles that shape every decision. Questions of equality and justice demand attention to how interventions might support or hinder equal living conditions, while potentially risking discrimination or stigmatization. The principle of autonomy requires creating meaningful opportunities for both children and families to influence decisions about their lives. Integrity concerns touch on how interventions respect family bonds and privacy, while questions of responsibility explore how support can enhance rather than undermine family capacity for positive change.

Structural Considerations

Maria must also navigate the complex institutional context that shapes service delivery. Available resources and organizational structures create practical boundaries for what's possible, while professional values and judgment interact with standardized assessment tools and guidelines. External pressures and competing stakeholder interests must be carefully balanced to ensure client needs remain central to all decisions.

These ethical dimensions aren't abstract principles - they materialize in daily decisions affecting real lives. While evidence-based practice emphasizes measurable outcomes, success requires both technical competence and practical wisdom to ensure that systematic approaches enhance rather than compromise professional judgment and human dignity.

The Ethics of Uncertainty

The Ethics of Uncertainty

As Christian Munthe³⁴ demonstrates in his analysis of precautionary thinking in welfare systems, every cautious decision carries hidden costs. This insight becomes crucial for Maria's child protection work, where the instinct - and often mandate - is to err on the side of caution.

The Cost of Precaution

When we postpone or hesitate to intervene, delay costs accumulate - families continue struggling with inadequate support and opportunities for early intervention may be lost. When we in an organization add safety measures out of caution, each layer adds complexity, expanding documentation requirements and potentially postponing intervention and constrain professional judgment. The pursuit of certainty through evidence and documentation can divert precious resources from direct client work.

The ethical dilemma becomes most acute in decisions about child placement. When evidence suggests a child is at serious risk, being overly cautious about placement - perhaps hoping things will improve or seeking more certainty - could expose the child to continued harm or even life-threatening situations. On the other hand we know placement will cause attachment disruption, trauma and psychological stress. As Munthe argues, we must weigh the costs of inaction as carefully as the risks of action - sometimes, waiting to be completely certain before intervening for a child's safety can be the most dangerous choice of all.

The Moral Asymmetry

The complexity of child protection decisions reveals what Munthe identifies as a fundamental asymmetry in how we evaluate risks and benefits. This asymmetry works in both directions: When considering removal, we weigh certain, documented trauma (disrupted attachments, psychological stress) against uncertain future benefits. But equally, when choosing not to remove a child, we might avoid certain immediate trauma while risking potentially catastrophic future harm.

This dual asymmetry creates what we might call "the welfare worker's burden" - the necessity to make life-altering decisions under profound uncertainty. Whether choosing to act or not to act, we must weigh known present harms against uncertain future outcomes. Research can provide population-level insights but offers limited guidance for individual cases. Each situation requires sophisticated professional judgment to navigate this fundamental uncertainty - a complexity that no standardized system, however well-designed, can fully resolve.

Ethics as representatives of society

As guardians of the social contract, we carry a big responsibility for these ethical questions. In Maria's child protection case, we need to balance an ethical decision-making:

Different knowledge types interact dynamically in practice. When Maria makes a child protection decision, she must weigh statistical risk factors against her professional judgment of how these manifest in this specific case, while incorporating the family's own understanding of their situation. This is my take on translating this to an approach;

In child protection decisions, a central part of ethics is in the process of dialogue with the family members and their network. This requires particular attention to how we as professionals approach our work. When Maria meets with families, she represents what I call "the Machine" - our society, our systems, procedures, and institutional power - this is a position of “knowing” - to assess. Yet to access the crucial knowledge that families hold about their own situation, she must transcend this mechanical role through a strengths-based approach to become “the Human” - into the position of “not knowing” - to explore.

This strengths-based approach and the position of not knowing requires:

• Creating genuine participation through empathetic engagement

• Recognizing families as experts on their own lives

• Building trust despite the power imbalance inherent in the relationship

• Looking for capabilities and resources, not just problems

• Understanding that meaningful dialogue requires human connection

The irony here is striking: while we represent society's systems and procedures, we must actively work to create spaces where human connection can flourish beyond these systemic constraints. Only through such connection can we access the knowledge needed to make our systems work effectively.

This tension between system requirements and human connection was powerfully illustrated through the work of Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer in developing solution-focused brief therapy. Their "not-knowing" position emerged from their recognition that truly understanding client strengths and resources required suspending professional assumptions and expertise in clientcommunication. Rather than approaching clients from a position of professional knowing - diagnosing problems and prescribing solutions - they discovered that genuine exploration of client capabilities required profound humility and curiosity.

This fundamental insight captures a crucial truth about human services: identifying strengths and resources requires active, intentional effort to step outside our professional frameworks and truly learn from clients. Our systems and professional training often draw us toward problems and risks, making it easy to miss the capabilities and solutions that exist within families.

The philosophical concept of "The not-knowing position” - recognizing knowledge limitations while maintaining systematic inquiry - offers key insights for modern family social work. While operating within structured systems requiring measurable outcomes, practitioners must balance evidence-based methodologies with awareness of family complexity. This historical framework helps social workers navigate between standardized assessments and the often unknowable aspects of family dynamics, enabling more nuanced interventions that honor both systematic requirements and family uniqueness.

This suggests our systems need to support this intentional focus on strengths and resources. This isn't just about adding positive categories to our forms - it's about designing systems that help professionals maintain a dual focus on both risks and resources, problems and possibilities, balancing professional knowing with the crucial capacity to not know and truly explore: to navigate between Human and Machine.

Building Ethical Systems

The challenge of building ethical welfare systems is both about developing the system and about developing the humans in them. Through my years of developing welfare organizations, I've learned that what we need are holistic frameworks that actively support ethical practice while engaging both professionals and clients as active participants in their own development.

Holistic Framework Development

My experience has shown that fragmentary approaches to system development - implementing isolated tools or procedures - often create more problems than they solve. Instead, what's needed is a comprehensive framework that integrates different types of knowledge while supporting professional judgment.

Let me share a concrete example from my own practice: When developing our organization's approach to child welfare assessments, we deliberately moved away from isolated assessment tools toward an integrated framework that considers multiple perspectives and knowledge types. We created a coherent whole that supports both professional judgment and client participation.

Creating Learning Organizations

One of the most crucial insights from our development work has been the fundamental importance of structured learning processes. Ethical practice isn't just about making good decisions - it's about continuously learning and developing both as individuals (Human) and organizations (Machine).

The foundation is psychological safety - creating environments where both professionals and clients feel safe to express concerns, share uncertainties, and learn from mistakes. A leadership that protects time for reflection, supports professional judgment, and values honest dialogue about challenges and uncertainties.

Building on this foundation, we developed structured processes for collective learning. This includes regular case discussions where teams can explore complex situations together, structured reflection sessions that help capture and share practice wisdom, and systematic ways to feed frontline insights back into organizational development.

What makes this approach different from traditional professional development is its integration into daily practice. Learning isn't something that happens in separate training sessions - it's built into the fabric of how we work.

Most importantly, a good leadership approach models the same principles we apply in client work - it's collaborative, strength-based, and focused on developing capabilities rather than just managing problems. It is - leading by both knowing, and not knowing!

A View from the Bottom of the Hourglass

I must acknowledge that what I've described here represents just one perspective from the bottom of our metaphorical hourglass. While we've managed to create spaces for ethical practice and professional development locally, the broader system continues to evolve - and it is not a Machine that is easy to handle, but as we explored in part 2, it is the democracy we are part of and therefore our responsibility to engage in.

As someone working at the frontlines of welfare services, I've felt compelled to raise my voice in national debates about these issues. The structures within which we operate must be continuously reconfigured to remain sustainable. I fear we're approaching a critical juncture with our societal systems where increased control and formalization threatens to suffocate the space needed for ethics, professional judgment, participation, development, and learning.

We risk building a machine where the space for human elements becomes so compressed that both clients and professionals suffer. When control systems and documentation requirements multiply while resources remain constant or diminish, something has to give. Too often, what gives is precisely what makes welfare work effective: the time for genuine human connection, the space for professional judgment, the capacity for learning and development.

This local perspective from the bottom of the hourglass needs to reach those at the top - the analysts and directors shaping national policies and systems. The knowledge gained through practical experience of building ethical systems at the local level must inform broader system development. Otherwise, we risk creating structures that, despite good intentions, ultimately undermine the very purposes they're meant to serve.

Looking Forward: The Paradox of Technology

As we look to the future of welfare services, we face what might seem like an insurmountable challenge: how to preserve and enhance the human elements of practice while managing increasingly complex systems and requirements. Yet paradoxically, I believe part of the solution may lie in the very technological advancement that seems to threaten human-centered practice: artificial intelligence.

I believe in a responsible progress, but one where we will find ourselves in a new paradigm of the Human and Machine relationship in society. We need a development that respects both the need for improvement and the imperative to protect vulnerable individuals. This means creating systems that support the human judgment, that enhance rather than constrain professional capabilities, and that free up rather than consume the time needed for genuine human connection.

This brings us to a provocative possibility: could AI and advanced technology, properly configured, actually help create more space for human elements in welfare work? Could intelligent systems take over routine documentation and administration, freeing professionals to focus on relationship-building and complex judgment? Could machine learning help us better understand patterns and connections while leaving the crucial interpretative and relational work to human professionals? How will this affect Knowing - and Not Knowing?

In our next exploration, we'll examine how artificial intelligence adds new dimensions to these ethical considerations, potentially offering solutions to some of the very problems it seems to create. We'll look at how AI might help us navigate the tension between systematic approaches and professional judgment, and how it might create new spaces for human connection in welfare work.

But before we move to that discussion, consider:

• How do you balance the costs of caution against the risks of change in your practice?

• What helps you navigate uncertainty in professional decisions?

• How do you maintain professional judgment within standardized systems?

• What role do you see technology playing in preserving rather than replacing human judgment?

The future of welfare work lies in finding the balance between human and machine approaches, and finding ways to use each to enhance the other. The challenge ahead is to ensure that technological advancement serves rather than supersedes human wisdom and connection.

---

This is part 5 in our ongoing series exploring the intersection of human judgment and systematic knowledge in modern welfare systems. Join the conversation by sharing your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.

1. Lundström, T., & Sallnäs, M. (2003). Klass, kön och etnicitet i den sociala barnavården. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 10(2-3), 193-213.

2. SBU (2019): Etiska aspekter på insatser inom det sociala området En vägledning för att identifiera relevanta etiska frågor

3. Munthe, C. (2004). Det kostar att vara försiktig [The Price of Being Careful].

4. SBU (2017). Insatser för bättre psykisk och fysisk hälsa hos familjehemsplacerade barn. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering (SBU); 2017. SBU-rapport nr 265. ISBN 978-91-88437-07-5.