BER-Case-82-5
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/139#BER-Case-82-5
Properties
Instance of
Confidence
0.98
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-5
Importance
high
Used by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
Used in context
Cited as precedent distinguishing between ethical obligation and ethical right to blow the whistle; established that where no direct public health/safety danger exists, continued escalation is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty
Source Evidence
Source text
In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts...
Text references
In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts...
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns... he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
TTL
@prefix case139: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/139#> .
@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#> .
case139:BER-Case-82-5 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER-Case-82-5" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.98" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "139" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 82-5" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "139" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts..." ;
proeth:textreferences "In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts...",
"if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns... he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment" ;
proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Cited as precedent distinguishing between ethical obligation and ethical right to blow the whistle; established that where no direct public health/safety danger exists, continued escalation is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 139 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T11:01:04.755167"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 139 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
139
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
First case
139
Generated
2026-02-28T10:39:12.406108+00:00
Attributed to
Case 139 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T11:01:04.755167
Generated by
ProEthica Case 139 Extraction