Passive Acquiescence — BER 84-5 Cost-Pressure Abandonment
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/136#Passive_Acquiescence_—_BER_84-5_Cost-Pressure_Abandonment
Properties
Instance of
PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure
Applied to
Engineer A BER 84-5's decision to proceed with construction project after client refused full-time safety representative
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
In BER 84-5, Engineer A recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction project, but when the client objected on cost grounds, Engineer A abandoned this safety recommendation and proceeded with the work — constituting passive acquiescence to client economic pressure after making a safety notification.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Making a safety recommendation and then abandoning it when the client objects on cost grounds is not ethically neutral — it is an independent ethical failure because the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety requires insistence, not mere mention followed by acquiescence.
Invoked by
Board of Ethical Review (BER 84-5 precedent)
Tension resolution
Public safety obligation overrides client economic concerns; Engineer A's abandonment of the safety recommendation upon cost objection was a violation of Section II.1.a. because it substituted client economic interests for the primary public safety obligation.
Source Evidence
Source text
However, when costs concerns where raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with the work on the project.
Text references
For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Section II.1.a. of the Code.
However, when costs concerns where raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with the work on the project.
The Board concluded that Engineer A appeared to have acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not to the public but to the client's economic concerns.
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/136#Passive_Acquiescence_—_BER_84-5_Cost-Pressure_Abandonment> a proeth:PassiveAcquiescenceAfterSafetyNotificationasIndependentEthicalFailure,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Passive Acquiescence — BER 84-5 Cost-Pressure Abandonment" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A BER 84-5's decision to proceed with construction project after client refused full-time safety representative" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "In BER 84-5, Engineer A recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction project, but when the client objected on cost grounds, Engineer A abandoned this safety recommendation and proceeded with the work — constituting passive acquiescence to client economic pressure after making a safety notification." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "136" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T13:03:31.215609+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "136" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T13:03:31.215609+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Making a safety recommendation and then abandoning it when the client objects on cost grounds is not ethically neutral — it is an independent ethical failure because the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety requires insistence, not mere mention followed by acquiescence." ;
proeth:invokedby "Board of Ethical Review (BER 84-5 precedent)" ;
proeth:principleclass "Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure" ;
proeth:sourcetext "However, when costs concerns where raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with the work on the project." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Public safety obligation overrides client economic concerns; Engineer A's abandonment of the safety recommendation upon cost objection was a violation of Section II.1.a. because it substituted client economic interests for the primary public safety obligation." ;
proeth:textreferences "For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Section II.1.a. of the Code.",
"However, when costs concerns where raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with the work on the project.",
"The Board concluded that Engineer A appeared to have acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not to the public but to the client's economic concerns." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 136 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:14:37.525433"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 136 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
136
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T13:03:31.215609+00:00
First case
136
Generated
2026-03-01T13:03:31.215609+00:00
Attributed to
Case 136 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T13:14:37.525433
Generated by
ProEthica Case 136 Extraction