DP8
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/123#DP8
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP8
Decision question
Is Engineer A ethically required to investigate and present hybrid and creative route alternatives — including partial re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse — before advising the state on a binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative, and does failure to do so breach the completeness obligation?
Focus
Engineer A: Complete Comparative Alternatives Presentation Including Creative Third-Path Solutions
Option1
Investigate and present all feasible hybrid alternatives — including partial route re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse to another appropriate site — before advising the state on any route choice; sequence eminent domain disclosure after alternatives are exhausted and accompany it with full cultural, historical, and proportionality consequence assessment
Option2
Present the binary choice between the shortest route and the longer alternative to the state, disclose eminent domain availability and the owner's refusal simultaneously with both options, and leave the proportionality judgment and any creative alternative investigation to the state as the legally empowered decision-maker — on the grounds that route optimization within the identified corridor is the contracted engineering scope and value-weighting between efficiency and cultural preservation is a policy determination for the client
Option3
Present the binary route choice with an explicit proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible cultural and familial harm of condemnation, recommend that the state authorize Engineer A to investigate hybrid alternatives before a final route decision is made, and flag physical relocation as a potential third-path option requiring further feasibility study — without conducting that feasibility study independently prior to client authorization
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case123: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/123#> .
@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#> .
case123:DP8 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Is Engineer A ethically required to investigate and present hybrid and creative route alternatives — including partial re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse — before advising the state on a binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative, and does failure to do so breach the completeness obligation?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A: Complete Comparative Alternatives Presentation Including Creative Third-Path Solutions" ;
proeth:option1 "Investigate and present all feasible hybrid alternatives — including partial route re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse to another appropriate site — before advising the state on any route choice; sequence eminent domain disclosure after alternatives are exhausted and accompany it with full cultural, historical, and proportionality consequence assessment" ;
proeth:option2 "Present the binary choice between the shortest route and the longer alternative to the state, disclose eminent domain availability and the owner's refusal simultaneously with both options, and leave the proportionality judgment and any creative alternative investigation to the state as the legally empowered decision-maker — on the grounds that route optimization within the identified corridor is the contracted engineering scope and value-weighting between efficiency and cultural preservation is a policy determination for the client" ;
proeth:option3 "Present the binary route choice with an explicit proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible cultural and familial harm of condemnation, recommend that the state authorize Engineer A to investigate hybrid alternatives before a final route decision is made, and flag physical relocation as a potential third-path option requiring further feasibility study — without conducting that feasibility study independently prior to client authorization" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:30:07.371534"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 123 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T00:30:07.371534
Generated by
ProEthica Case 123 Extraction