DP5
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#DP5
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP5
Decision question
Must Engineer A affirmatively disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework rather than an established regulatory or industry standard, and must Engineer A further recommend that the manufacturer publicly disclose the vehicle's embedded ethical decision logic to consumers before deployment?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a specific moral philosophy rather than a universally accepted engineering standard, and to recommend pre-sale public disclosure of the embedded ethical framework to prospective consumers
Option1
Explicitly disclose to the automobile manufacturer in the technical report that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a utilitarian moral philosophy rather than an established engineering standard, identify deontological and other alternative frameworks that yield different outcomes, and affirmatively recommend that the manufacturer implement pre-sale consumer disclosure of the vehicle's harm-allocation decision logic as a condition of ethically responsible deployment
Option2
Disclose the philosophical basis of the harm-minimization recommendation to the manufacturer's engineering and legal teams as part of the confidential consulting deliverable, but limit the consumer disclosure recommendation to a general advisory that the manufacturer consult legal counsel about disclosure obligations, leaving the public transparency decision to the manufacturer's business judgment
Option3
Present the harm-minimization recommendation as Engineer A's professional judgment grounded in the NSPE Code's public welfare paramount obligation without characterizing it as utilitarian or labeling its philosophical foundations, on the basis that the Code itself — rather than a contested moral philosophy — provides the normative authority for the recommendation, and defer consumer disclosure questions to the manufacturer and its regulatory counsel
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:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Must Engineer A affirmatively disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation is grounded in a utilitarian ethical framework rather than an established regulatory or industry standard, and must Engineer A further recommend that the manufacturer publicly disclose the vehicle's embedded ethical decision logic to consumers before deployment?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to disclose to the automobile manufacturer that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a specific moral philosophy rather than a universally accepted engineering standard, and to recommend pre-sale public disclosure of the embedded ethical framework to prospective consumers" ;
proeth:option1 "Explicitly disclose to the automobile manufacturer in the technical report that the harm-minimization recommendation reflects a utilitarian moral philosophy rather than an established engineering standard, identify deontological and other alternative frameworks that yield different outcomes, and affirmatively recommend that the manufacturer implement pre-sale consumer disclosure of the vehicle's harm-allocation decision logic as a condition of ethically responsible deployment" ;
proeth:option2 "Disclose the philosophical basis of the harm-minimization recommendation to the manufacturer's engineering and legal teams as part of the confidential consulting deliverable, but limit the consumer disclosure recommendation to a general advisory that the manufacturer consult legal counsel about disclosure obligations, leaving the public transparency decision to the manufacturer's business judgment" ;
proeth:option3 "Present the harm-minimization recommendation as Engineer A's professional judgment grounded in the NSPE Code's public welfare paramount obligation without characterizing it as utilitarian or labeling its philosophical foundations, on the basis that the Code itself — rather than a contested moral philosophy — provides the normative authority for the recommendation, and defer consumer disclosure questions to the manufacturer and its regulatory counsel" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:54:23.513828"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 165 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T23:54:23.513828
Generated by
ProEthica Case 165 Extraction