DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
Should Engineer A recommend that the autonomous vehicle's operating system minimize harm to the least number of persons, and actively express that concern within the risk assessment team even under commercial pressure to prioritize passenger safety?
Focus
Engineer A's core obligation to recommend harm minimization for the least number of persons and to actively participate in the risk assessment team by unambiguously expressing safety concerns about the harm-allocation algorithm
Option1
Formally recommend that the harm-allocation algorithm minimize harm to the least number of persons, actively express this position within the risk assessment team, document the recommendation in writing, and propose further interdisciplinary study and exploration of dynamic real-time mitigation alternatives before deployment
Option2
Present the harm-minimization approach as one among several technically defensible design options, defer to the risk assessment team's collective judgment on which framework to adopt, and limit Engineer A's formal output to a balanced technical summary of competing approaches without a personal recommendation
Option3
Recommend harm minimization internally within the risk assessment team but accept the manufacturer's passenger-priority preference as a legitimate design policy choice within the manufacturer's authority, confining Engineer A's role to optimizing the passenger-priority algorithm's technical implementation rather than contesting the underlying policy
Role
Engineer A
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:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A recommend that the autonomous vehicle's operating system minimize harm to the least number of persons, and actively express that concern within the risk assessment team even under commercial pressure to prioritize passenger safety?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's core obligation to recommend harm minimization for the least number of persons and to actively participate in the risk assessment team by unambiguously expressing safety concerns about the harm-allocation algorithm" ;
proeth:option1 "Formally recommend that the harm-allocation algorithm minimize harm to the least number of persons, actively express this position within the risk assessment team, document the recommendation in writing, and propose further interdisciplinary study and exploration of dynamic real-time mitigation alternatives before deployment" ;
proeth:option2 "Present the harm-minimization approach as one among several technically defensible design options, defer to the risk assessment team's collective judgment on which framework to adopt, and limit Engineer A's formal output to a balanced technical summary of competing approaches without a personal recommendation" ;
proeth:option3 "Recommend harm minimization internally within the risk assessment team but accept the manufacturer's passenger-priority preference as a legitimate design policy choice within the manufacturer's authority, confining Engineer A's role to optimizing the passenger-priority algorithm's technical implementation rather than contesting the underlying policy" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:54:23.513755"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 165 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T23:54:23.513755
Generated by
ProEthica Case 165 Extraction