Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Dam Design Alternatives
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Environmental_and_Infrastructure_Policy_Subjective_Balancing_—_Dam_Design_Alternatives
Properties
Instance of
EnvironmentalandInfrastructurePolicySubjectiveBalancingAcknowledgmentPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#EnvironmentalandInfrastructurePolicySubjectiveBalancingAcknowledgmentPrinciple
Applied to
Legislative choice between low-dam series and single high-dam infrastructure solutions
Balancing with
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
Objectivity
Concrete expression
The choice between a series of low dams and one high dam for water supply, flood control, and power production involves subjective policy trade-offs that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis alone; both engineers' conclusions are reached in good faith and each is acting ethically regardless of which solution the legislature ultimately selects.
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Interpretation
The years-long public debate over the most efficient and economical method confirms that this is not a question with a single technically correct answer; the subjective balancing principle establishes that both engineers' good-faith positions are ethically valid contributions to the policy process.
Invoked by
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
Tension resolution
No fundamental tension — the subjective balancing principle and the honest disagreement principle mutually reinforce each other in establishing that both engineers' positions are ethically legitimate.
Source Evidence
Source text
The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
Text references
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.
The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Environmental_and_Infrastructure_Policy_Subjective_Balancing_—_Dam_Design_Alternatives> a proeth:EnvironmentalandInfrastructurePolicySubjectiveBalancingAcknowledgmentPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing — Dam Design Alternatives" ;
proeth:appliedto "Legislative choice between low-dam series and single high-dam infrastructure solutions" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle",
"Objectivity" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The choice between a series of low dams and one high dam for water supply, flood control, and power production involves subjective policy trade-offs that cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis alone; both engineers' conclusions are reached in good faith and each is acting ethically regardless of which solution the legislature ultimately selects." ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The years-long public debate over the most efficient and economical method confirms that this is not a question with a single technically correct answer; the subjective balancing principle establishes that both engineers' good-faith positions are ethically valid contributions to the policy process." ;
proeth:invokedby "Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness",
"State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness" ;
proeth:principleclass "Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "No fundamental tension — the subjective balancing principle and the honest disagreement principle mutually reinforce each other in establishing that both engineers' positions are ethically legitimate." ;
proeth:textreferences "A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.",
"Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam.",
"The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 114 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T15:38:37.735553"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 114 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
114
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
First case
114
Generated
2026-03-02T15:19:51.753769+00:00
Attributed to
Case 114 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T15:38:37.735553
Generated by
ProEthica Case 114 Extraction