DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/110#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
If the contractor takes no corrective action after Engineer A reports concerns about Engineer B's competence, should Engineer A escalate to the state licensing board and withdraw from the project, or continue participation while deferring to the contractor's authority over the retention decision?
Focus
After Engineer A reports concerns to the contractor, the contractor takes no corrective action and directs Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B. Engineer A must decide whether to escalate beyond the contractor to the state licensing board and potentially withdraw from the project, or to continue participation while relying on the contractor's authority to manage the situation. The tension is between the progressive escalation norm, the complicity avoidance principle, and the limits of Engineer A's independent authority to override a client's project decision.
Option1
Notify the state licensing board of the ongoing competence violation and withdraw from the project, recognizing that contractor inaction has exhausted internal remedies and that continued participation would constitute complicity in a foreseeable public safety harm.
Option2
Withdraw from the project to avoid personal complicity but refrain from notifying the state licensing board, treating withdrawal as a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligations and leaving further action to the contractor's discretion.
Option3
Continue working on the project under the contractor's direction while formally documenting Engineer A's objections in writing to the contractor, on the basis that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the retention decision and Engineer A's reporting obligation was discharged by the initial notification.
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case110: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/110#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case110:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "If the contractor takes no corrective action after Engineer A reports concerns about Engineer B's competence, should Engineer A escalate to the state licensing board and withdraw from the project, or continue participation while deferring to the contractor's authority over the retention decision?" ;
proeth:focus "After Engineer A reports concerns to the contractor, the contractor takes no corrective action and directs Engineer A to continue working on the project alongside Engineer B. Engineer A must decide whether to escalate beyond the contractor to the state licensing board and potentially withdraw from the project, or to continue participation while relying on the contractor's authority to manage the situation. The tension is between the progressive escalation norm, the complicity avoidance principle, and the limits of Engineer A's independent authority to override a client's project decision." ;
proeth:option1 "Notify the state licensing board of the ongoing competence violation and withdraw from the project, recognizing that contractor inaction has exhausted internal remedies and that continued participation would constitute complicity in a foreseeable public safety harm." ;
proeth:option2 "Withdraw from the project to avoid personal complicity but refrain from notifying the state licensing board, treating withdrawal as a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's ethical obligations and leaving further action to the contractor's discretion." ;
proeth:option3 "Continue working on the project under the contractor's direction while formally documenting Engineer A's objections in writing to the contractor, on the basis that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the retention decision and Engineer A's reporting obligation was discharged by the initial notification." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:45:06.838412"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 110 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T10:45:06.838412
Generated by
ProEthica Case 110 Extraction