Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility — Highway Cost Estimate Dispute
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/124#Honest_Disagreement_Among_Qualified_Engineers_Permissibility_—_Highway_Cost_Estimate_Dispute
Properties
Instance of
HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Disputed cost estimates for highway bypass route alternatives
Balancing with
Sound Knowledge Foundation Requirement for Public Engineering Opinion
Concrete expression
The consulting engineer's disagreement with the highway department engineers' cost estimates was found ethically permissible because engineering problems — including route selection and cost estimation — do not always admit of a single correct answer, and qualified engineers can honestly reach different conclusions from the same physical facts.
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Interpretation
Disagreement between equally qualified engineers on cost estimates and route selection reflects the legitimate range of professional judgment in engineering, not an ethical violation by either party.
Invoked by
Consulting Engineer Principal Public Route Alternative Proposer
Highway Department Route Design Engineers
Tension resolution
The permissibility of honest disagreement is conditioned on both engineers having adequate knowledge; the disagreement itself is not a violation by either party.
Source Evidence
Source text
Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer. . . . There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
Text references
Assuming complete factual agreement...engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/124#Honest_Disagreement_Among_Qualified_Engineers_Permissibility_—_Highway_Cost_Estimate_Dispute> a proeth:HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility — Highway Cost Estimate Dispute" ;
proeth:appliedto "Disputed cost estimates for highway bypass route alternatives" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Sound Knowledge Foundation Requirement for Public Engineering Opinion" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The consulting engineer's disagreement with the highway department engineers' cost estimates was found ethically permissible because engineering problems — including route selection and cost estimation — do not always admit of a single correct answer, and qualified engineers can honestly reach different conclusions from the same physical facts." ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "124" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T15:29:59.363035+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "124" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T15:29:59.363035+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Disagreement between equally qualified engineers on cost estimates and route selection reflects the legitimate range of professional judgment in engineering, not an ethical violation by either party." ;
proeth:invokedby "Consulting Engineer Principal Public Route Alternative Proposer",
"Highway Department Route Design Engineers" ;
proeth:principleclass "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer. . . . There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The permissibility of honest disagreement is conditioned on both engineers having adequate knowledge; the disagreement itself is not a violation by either party." ;
proeth:textreferences "Assuming complete factual agreement...engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.",
"Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.",
"There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 124 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T15:41:57.144439"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 124 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
124
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T15:29:59.363035+00:00
First case
124
Generated
2026-03-02T15:29:59.363035+00:00
Attributed to
Case 124 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T15:41:57.144439
Generated by
ProEthica Case 124 Extraction