DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should the engineering firm interpret its employment application disciplinary question according to its evident purpose — capturing any adjudicated professional misconduct — or accept that its narrow literal drafting confined Engineer F's disclosure obligation to PE license matters only?
Focus
The engineering firm's decision whether to interpret its employment application disciplinary question broadly — as covering any adjudicated professional or occupational license discipline — or narrowly as written, and whether the firm's drafting choices bear moral weight in distributing responsibility for the informational gap that resulted when Engineer F answered 'no' to a question that literally referenced only PE license discipline.
Option1
Treat the disciplinary question as having been intended to capture any adjudicated professional or occupational misconduct bearing on character and fitness, and hold that Engineer F's 'no' answer was an ethically impermissible misleading omission regardless of the question's literal wording — placing full moral responsibility for the informational gap on the applicant.
Option2
Treat the question's literal wording as the operative definition of the disclosure domain, acknowledging that Engineer F's 'no' answer was technically accurate and that the firm's failure to ask about non-PE licenses distributes meaningful moral responsibility for the informational gap to the firm's own due diligence failure.
Option3
Acknowledge that the firm's narrow drafting contributed to the informational gap by creating an exploitable ambiguity, distribute partial moral responsibility to the firm's due diligence failure, and commit to revising the application to ask broadly about all professional and occupational license discipline — while still treating Engineer F's omission as an independent ethics violation.
Role
Employer
TTL
@prefix case148: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#> .
@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#> .
case148:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the engineering firm interpret its employment application disciplinary question according to its evident purpose — capturing any adjudicated professional misconduct — or accept that its narrow literal drafting confined Engineer F's disclosure obligation to PE license matters only?" ;
proeth:focus "The engineering firm's decision whether to interpret its employment application disciplinary question broadly — as covering any adjudicated professional or occupational license discipline — or narrowly as written, and whether the firm's drafting choices bear moral weight in distributing responsibility for the informational gap that resulted when Engineer F answered 'no' to a question that literally referenced only PE license discipline." ;
proeth:option1 "Treat the disciplinary question as having been intended to capture any adjudicated professional or occupational misconduct bearing on character and fitness, and hold that Engineer F's 'no' answer was an ethically impermissible misleading omission regardless of the question's literal wording — placing full moral responsibility for the informational gap on the applicant." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the question's literal wording as the operative definition of the disclosure domain, acknowledging that Engineer F's 'no' answer was technically accurate and that the firm's failure to ask about non-PE licenses distributes meaningful moral responsibility for the informational gap to the firm's own due diligence failure." ;
proeth:option3 "Acknowledge that the firm's narrow drafting contributed to the informational gap by creating an exploitable ambiguity, distribute partial moral responsibility to the firm's due diligence failure, and commit to revising the application to ask broadly about all professional and occupational license discipline — while still treating Engineer F's omission as an independent ethics violation." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Employer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:27:29.020302"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T23:27:29.020302
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction