Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked in Passenger vs. Third-Party Safety Trade-Off

@prefix case165: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#> . @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#> . case165:Competing_Public_Goods_Balancing_Invoked_in_Passenger_vs._Third-Party_Safety_Trade-Off a proeth:CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked in Passenger vs. Third-Party Safety Trade-Off" ; proeth:appliedto "Autonomous vehicle crash-avoidance algorithm recommendation" ; proeth:balancingwith "Algorithmic Harm Distribution Ethics in Autonomous Systems", "Client Loyalty", "Public Welfare Paramount" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's risk assessment team faces a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — passenger safety (protecting vehicle occupants) and third-party safety (protecting pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists) — requiring the team to present both goods and their trade-offs fully and objectively to the automobile manufacturer rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally in favor of one value" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "165" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "165" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Both passenger safety and third-party safety are legitimate public welfare values; the engineering risk assessment team's role is to present the trade-offs between them objectively and completely, enabling the manufacturer and ultimately regulators and the public to make an informed policy determination about which framework should govern autonomous vehicle design" ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Engineer" ; proeth:principleclass "Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles" ; proeth:sourcetext "does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers or does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The principle requires that the recommendation not resolve the conflict unilaterally but instead present both frameworks with their ethical, legal, and public welfare implications, leaving the ultimate policy choice to appropriate decision-making authorities" ; proeth:textreferences "does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers or does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident", "having the car crash into a stationary object (e.g., telephone pole, etc.) with the probability of causing some passengers serious but non-life-threatening injuries instead of striking and potentially causing a fatal injury to a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcycle rider" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 165 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:40:57.917294"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 165 Extraction" .