DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/128#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing State B offices alongside the P.E. designation while relying solely on the explicit State C-only licensure notation to prevent recipients from inferring that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, or must the card include an additional affirmative clarification that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting?
Focus
Engineer A distributes a business card in State C that lists offices in State B and identifies licensure as held only in State C, while actually performing only non-engineering consulting services from the State B office. The card creates a potential inference that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, but the explicit State C-only licensure notation and the non-engineering character of State B activities are offered as sufficient disclosure. The question is whether the card's explicit licensure notation adequately discharges the honesty obligation, and what ongoing obligation Engineer A bears to update the card if the scope of State B services changes.
Option1
Distribute the card as presented, treating the explicit State C-only licensure notation as sufficient to discharge the honesty obligation and prevent recipients from being misled about the availability of licensed engineering services from the State B office, while maintaining a strict behavioral commitment to non-engineering consulting in State B.
Option2
Revise the card to include an affirmative notation that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, eliminating the residual inferential risk that recipients might assume licensed engineering services are available from that office rather than merely mitigating it through the licensure-state disclosure.
Option3
Omit the State B office reference from the business card entirely, listing only the State C licensure and contact information, on the grounds that including a State B address alongside the P.E. designation creates an inferential risk that cannot be fully neutralized by textual disclosure alone.
Role
Engineer A (Situation 3)
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:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing State B offices alongside the P.E. designation while relying solely on the explicit State C-only licensure notation to prevent recipients from inferring that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, or must the card include an additional affirmative clarification that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A distributes a business card in State C that lists offices in State B and identifies licensure as held only in State C, while actually performing only non-engineering consulting services from the State B office. The card creates a potential inference that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, but the explicit State C-only licensure notation and the non-engineering character of State B activities are offered as sufficient disclosure. The question is whether the card's explicit licensure notation adequately discharges the honesty obligation, and what ongoing obligation Engineer A bears to update the card if the scope of State B services changes." ;
proeth:option1 "Distribute the card as presented, treating the explicit State C-only licensure notation as sufficient to discharge the honesty obligation and prevent recipients from being misled about the availability of licensed engineering services from the State B office, while maintaining a strict behavioral commitment to non-engineering consulting in State B." ;
proeth:option2 "Revise the card to include an affirmative notation that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, eliminating the residual inferential risk that recipients might assume licensed engineering services are available from that office rather than merely mitigating it through the licensure-state disclosure." ;
proeth:option3 "Omit the State B office reference from the business card entirely, listing only the State C licensure and contact information, on the grounds that including a State B address alongside the P.E. designation creates an inferential risk that cannot be fully neutralized by textual disclosure alone." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666804"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T22:30:39.666804
Generated by
ProEthica Case 128 Extraction