DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

Does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to assess and communicate the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of the historic farmhouse — explicitly balancing the competing interests of all affected parties — even when the state client has not requested that comparative judgment and the greatest-good principle might facially favor the traveling majority?

Engineer A's obligation to conduct and present a multi-interest balancing analysis that explicitly weighs the competing interests of the traveling public, the historic farmhouse owner, the state client, and the general public — including a proportionality assessment between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property

Conduct and present to the state client an explicit multi-interest proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible displacement of the 100-year-old historic property — identifying the asymmetry between diffuse public benefit and concentrated irreversible harm, flagging the cultural and historical dimensions of the loss as non-fungible public welfare considerations, and framing the greatest-good analysis as internally plural rather than simply majoritarian

Present the state client with a complete technical comparison of route alternatives — including travel time savings, construction cost, and property acquisition requirements — and note the historic significance of the farmhouse as a factual constraint, while leaving the proportionality judgment and interest-balancing analysis to the state as the policy-making authority, on the grounds that weighing competing social values is a governmental function that Engineer A should inform but not perform

Present the state client with a multi-interest analysis that identifies the competing interests of all affected parties and quantifies the travel time benefit, but apply the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number principle as the primary decisional framework — explicitly recommending the shortest route as the option that maximizes aggregate public benefit while disclosing the eminent domain consequences and the owner's opposition as material factors the state must weigh in exercising its sovereign authority

Multi-Interest Balancing Engineer A Route Selection Analysis