Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Low Dams vs. High Dam Engineering Positions
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_—_Low_Dams_vs._High_Dam_Engineering_Positions
Properties
Instance of
HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Competing engineering analyses of dam design for water supply, flood control, and electric power production
Balancing with
Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
Objectivity
Concrete expression
The state power commission PE concludes that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, while the private power company PE concludes that one high dam is more effective and less expensive; both conclusions are grounded in engineering analysis and data, making this a legitimate professional disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Engineering problems involving large infrastructure trade-offs do not always have a single correct answer; both the low-dam and high-dam positions represent honest professional conclusions from engineering analysis, and neither engineer is acting unethically by reaching a different conclusion than the other.
Invoked by
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness
Tension resolution
The honest disagreement principle resolves any apparent tension by establishing that differing conclusions from the same physical facts are normal in engineering practice, provided each engineer has conducted a genuine analysis.
Source Evidence
Source text
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.
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.
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#Honest_Disagreement_Permissibility_—_Low_Dams_vs._High_Dam_Engineering_Positions> a proeth:HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Honest Disagreement Permissibility — Low Dams vs. High Dam Engineering Positions" ;
proeth:appliedto "Competing engineering analyses of dam design for water supply, flood control, and electric power production" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation",
"Objectivity" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The state power commission PE concludes that a series of low dams is the most efficient engineering solution, while the private power company PE concludes that one high dam is more effective and less expensive; both conclusions are grounded in engineering analysis and data, making this a legitimate professional disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
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 "Engineering problems involving large infrastructure trade-offs do not always have a single correct answer; both the low-dam and high-dam positions represent honest professional conclusions from engineering analysis, and neither engineer is acting unethically by reaching a different conclusion than the other." ;
proeth:invokedby "Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness",
"State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness" ;
proeth:principleclass "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "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." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The honest disagreement principle resolves any apparent tension by establishing that differing conclusions from the same physical facts are normal in engineering practice, provided each engineer has conducted a genuine analysis." ;
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." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 114 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T15:38:37.734558"^^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
2026-03-02T15:38:37.734558
Generated by
ProEthica Case 114 Extraction