DP4
Individual
24307076
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#DP4
Properties
Parent
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision Question
Should Company B engineers immediately refuse to participate in all project activity once their employer directs them to proceed, or must they first propose submission of the dispute to an impartial expert body before withdrawal becomes mandatory?
Focus
Company B Engineers: Graduated Escalation Sequence and Project Withdrawal Obligation
Option1
Formally propose submission of the disputed design to an independent and impartial body of experts as the next required step, and only refuse all project participation if that proposal is rejected or the arbitration fails to resolve the safety concern to the engineers' satisfaction.
Option2
Treat the employer's directive to proceed — issued after internal and inter-firm escalation have both been rejected — as the trigger for immediate, complete withdrawal from all engineering activity connected with the project, without waiting to propose or pursue impartial arbitration.
Option3
Remain on the project while filing a written disclaimer documenting the engineers' safety objections, on the grounds that continued involvement preserves residual influence over production quality and that the employer's directive, having been formally contested, shifts moral responsibility to management.
Role Label
Engineer
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proethica_case_160: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#DP4> a owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Ontology
Type
Individual
Content Hash
24307076808a77a5...Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-03-02T15:10:46.722418
Generated By
ProEthica Case 160 Extraction