DP1
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/128#DP1
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision question
Should Engineer A distribute a business card bearing the P.E. designation at a business meeting without identifying the states of licensure or a mailing address, or must the card include sufficient jurisdictional information for recipients to assess the engineer's legal authority to practice?
Focus
Engineer A distributes a business card at a professional business meeting in State E bearing the P.E. designation but omitting both a physical mailing address and any identification of the states in which licensure is held. The question is whether this combination of omissions renders the card ethically deficient under the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception requirements.
Option1
Distribute the business card only after adding explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure, and include a mailing address, so that recipients can assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority to practice.
Option2
Distribute the card as currently printed, treating it as a passive personal identification instrument rather than a solicitation, on the theory that a business card does not constitute an offer of engineering services and therefore does not trigger the full licensure-disclosure obligation.
Option3
Add a mailing address to the card to provide a geographic anchor for recipients, but omit explicit identification of licensed states on the grounds that the address itself signals the base of practice and recipients can independently verify licensure status if needed.
Role
Engineer A (Situation 1)
TTL
@prefix case128: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/128#> .
@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#> .
case128:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A distribute a business card bearing the P.E. designation at a business meeting without identifying the states of licensure or a mailing address, or must the card include sufficient jurisdictional information for recipients to assess the engineer's legal authority to practice?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A distributes a business card at a professional business meeting in State E bearing the P.E. designation but omitting both a physical mailing address and any identification of the states in which licensure is held. The question is whether this combination of omissions renders the card ethically deficient under the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception requirements." ;
proeth:option1 "Distribute the business card only after adding explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure, and include a mailing address, so that recipients can assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority to practice." ;
proeth:option2 "Distribute the card as currently printed, treating it as a passive personal identification instrument rather than a solicitation, on the theory that a business card does not constitute an offer of engineering services and therefore does not trigger the full licensure-disclosure obligation." ;
proeth:option3 "Add a mailing address to the card to provide a geographic anchor for recipients, but omit explicit identification of licensed states on the grounds that the address itself signals the base of practice and recipients can independently verify licensure status if needed." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666647"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T22:30:39.666647
Generated by
ProEthica Case 128 Extraction