DP8

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

DP8

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?

Engineer A: Complete Comparative Alternatives Presentation Including Creative Third-Path Solutions

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

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

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

Engineer