DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
Should Engineer A and Engineer B adopt CADD technology for preparing and sealing engineering documents, or should they decline to use CADD until a higher standard of demonstrated proficiency and established supervisory protocols is in place?
Focus
Both Engineer A and Engineer B adopted CADD technology for the preparation of engineering documents. The question is whether adopting CADD as a production tool, rather than continuing with conventional drafting methods, was ethically permissible given the competence and oversight conditions present.
Option1
Proceed with CADD adoption for document preparation, ensuring that engineering judgment drives all design decisions and that CADD functions solely as a drafting and production tool subject to engineer review and control.
Option2
Defer CADD adoption until both engineers have reached advanced proficiency, treating the intermediate proficiency level as insufficient to ensure that technology does not inadvertently substitute for engineering judgment.
Option3
Adopt CADD exclusively for geometric drafting and layout tasks while continuing to perform all engineering calculations and design decisions through conventional methods, limiting the scope of CADD use to areas where non-substitution risk is lowest.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case120: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#> .
@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#> .
case120:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A and Engineer B adopt CADD technology for preparing and sealing engineering documents, or should they decline to use CADD until a higher standard of demonstrated proficiency and established supervisory protocols is in place?" ;
proeth:focus "Both Engineer A and Engineer B adopted CADD technology for the preparation of engineering documents. The question is whether adopting CADD as a production tool, rather than continuing with conventional drafting methods, was ethically permissible given the competence and oversight conditions present." ;
proeth:option1 "Proceed with CADD adoption for document preparation, ensuring that engineering judgment drives all design decisions and that CADD functions solely as a drafting and production tool subject to engineer review and control." ;
proeth:option2 "Defer CADD adoption until both engineers have reached advanced proficiency, treating the intermediate proficiency level as insufficient to ensure that technology does not inadvertently substitute for engineering judgment." ;
proeth:option3 "Adopt CADD exclusively for geometric drafting and layout tasks while continuing to perform all engineering calculations and design decisions through conventional methods, limiting the scope of CADD use to areas where non-substitution risk is lowest." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 120 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 120 Extraction