DP9
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/123#DP9
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP9
Decision question
When the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to serve the state's interest in the most efficient route — directly conflicts with the Do No Harm Obligation — requiring avoidance of irreversible harm to the farmhouse owner — how should Engineer A structure the advisory to honor both obligations without subordinating either?
Focus
Engineer A: Resolving the Conflict Between Faithful Agent Obligation and Do No Harm Obligation When Shortest Route Requires Eminent Domain of Historic Property
Option1
Present the state with a complete multi-option advisory that sequences creative and hybrid alternatives first, frames eminent domain as a last resort accompanied by full cultural and proportionality consequence disclosure, and explicitly advises the state that faithful service to its legitimate interests includes awareness of the legal, reputational, and ethical costs of condemnation — leaving the final route decision to the state with full informational basis
Option2
Present the shortest route as the primary recommendation consistent with the contracted scope, disclose the eminent domain requirement and the owner's refusal as implementation constraints, and note the longer alternative as a fallback — without providing an independent proportionality assessment or harm-weighting judgment, on the grounds that the state as the legally empowered client is best positioned to weigh efficiency against condemnation costs and that providing unsolicited value judgments risks usurping the client's policy-making authority
Option3
Advise the state that Engineer A cannot recommend the shortest route without qualification given the irreversible harm its only viable implementation path imposes on the farmhouse owner, present the longer route as the professionally defensible recommendation, and offer to conduct further analysis of hybrid alternatives if the state wishes to pursue a middle path — framing the advisory as a professional judgment that the disproportionality of harm warrants recommending against the shortest route absent feasible alternatives
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:DP9 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to serve the state's interest in the most efficient route — directly conflicts with the Do No Harm Obligation — requiring avoidance of irreversible harm to the farmhouse owner — how should Engineer A structure the advisory to honor both obligations without subordinating either?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A: Resolving the Conflict Between Faithful Agent Obligation and Do No Harm Obligation When Shortest Route Requires Eminent Domain of Historic Property" ;
proeth:option1 "Present the state with a complete multi-option advisory that sequences creative and hybrid alternatives first, frames eminent domain as a last resort accompanied by full cultural and proportionality consequence disclosure, and explicitly advises the state that faithful service to its legitimate interests includes awareness of the legal, reputational, and ethical costs of condemnation — leaving the final route decision to the state with full informational basis" ;
proeth:option2 "Present the shortest route as the primary recommendation consistent with the contracted scope, disclose the eminent domain requirement and the owner's refusal as implementation constraints, and note the longer alternative as a fallback — without providing an independent proportionality assessment or harm-weighting judgment, on the grounds that the state as the legally empowered client is best positioned to weigh efficiency against condemnation costs and that providing unsolicited value judgments risks usurping the client's policy-making authority" ;
proeth:option3 "Advise the state that Engineer A cannot recommend the shortest route without qualification given the irreversible harm its only viable implementation path imposes on the farmhouse owner, present the longer route as the professionally defensible recommendation, and offer to conduct further analysis of hybrid alternatives if the state wishes to pursue a middle path — framing the advisory as a professional judgment that the disproportionality of harm warrants recommending against the shortest route absent feasible alternatives" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:30:07.371608"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 123 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T00:30:07.371608
Generated by
ProEthica Case 123 Extraction