DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Given that no applicable national or industry standards govern autonomous vehicle harm-allocation decision logic, must Engineer A affirmatively disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework rather than a technically mandated norm — and must Engineer A further recommend that the manufacturer publicly disclose the algorithm's embedded moral framework to prospective consumers before deployment?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a specific moral framework rather than a universally accepted engineering standard, and to recommend public disclosure of the embedded ethical framework to prospective consumers before deployment — particularly in the absence of applicable regulatory or industry standards
Option1
Explicitly identify in the written risk assessment report that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework, present the deontological alternative framework and its different algorithmic implications with equal completeness, and include a specific advisory that the manufacturer implement pre-sale public disclosure of the vehicle's harm-allocation decision logic before deployment
Option2
Present both the passenger-priority and harm-minimization frameworks objectively in the risk assessment report — including their respective advantages and disadvantages — without characterizing either as utilitarian or deontological, and recommend that the manufacturer consult legal counsel and ethics advisors regarding consumer disclosure obligations, treating the philosophical labeling and public disclosure questions as outside the scope of the engineering risk assessment mandate
Option3
Identify the philosophical basis of the harm-minimization recommendation in the internal risk assessment report delivered to the manufacturer, recommend that the manufacturer seek interdisciplinary ethics review before finalizing the algorithm design, but decline to recommend specific consumer-facing public disclosure on the ground that disclosure strategy is a legal and business decision within the manufacturer's exclusive authority as client
Role
Engineer A — Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Member and Consultant
TTL
@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 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#> .
case165:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Given that no applicable national or industry standards govern autonomous vehicle harm-allocation decision logic, must Engineer A affirmatively disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework rather than a technically mandated norm — and must Engineer A further recommend that the manufacturer publicly disclose the algorithm's embedded moral framework to prospective consumers before deployment?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a specific moral framework rather than a universally accepted engineering standard, and to recommend public disclosure of the embedded ethical framework to prospective consumers before deployment — particularly in the absence of applicable regulatory or industry standards" ;
proeth:option1 "Explicitly identify in the written risk assessment report that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework, present the deontological alternative framework and its different algorithmic implications with equal completeness, and include a specific advisory that the manufacturer implement pre-sale public disclosure of the vehicle's harm-allocation decision logic before deployment" ;
proeth:option2 "Present both the passenger-priority and harm-minimization frameworks objectively in the risk assessment report — including their respective advantages and disadvantages — without characterizing either as utilitarian or deontological, and recommend that the manufacturer consult legal counsel and ethics advisors regarding consumer disclosure obligations, treating the philosophical labeling and public disclosure questions as outside the scope of the engineering risk assessment mandate" ;
proeth:option3 "Identify the philosophical basis of the harm-minimization recommendation in the internal risk assessment report delivered to the manufacturer, recommend that the manufacturer seek interdisciplinary ethics review before finalizing the algorithm design, but decline to recommend specific consumer-facing public disclosure on the ground that disclosure strategy is a legal and business decision within the manufacturer's exclusive authority as client" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A — Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Member and Consultant" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:54:23.513586"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 165 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T23:54:23.513586
Generated by
ProEthica Case 165 Extraction