Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Applied to Engineer A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Questionable_Competition_Methods_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A
Properties
Instance of
QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughFaithfulAgentBreach
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughFaithfulAgentBreach
Applied to
Engineer A's competitive solicitation methods during employment
Balancing with
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
Concrete expression
Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while employed constituted questionable methods of competition under Section III.7, because Engineer A knew or should have known the conduct was ethically problematic even if not certain it was a violation.
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Interpretation
The 'knew or should have known' standard applies to competition ethics: an engineer cannot escape a Section III.7 violation by claiming subjective uncertainty when the conduct was objectively dubious.
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board held that the faithful agent breach and the competition methods violation are co-extensive in this case; the same conduct violates both provisions.
Source Evidence
Source text
Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
Text references
Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.
It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7.
TTL
@prefix case171: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#> .
@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#> .
case171:Questionable_Competition_Methods_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_A a proeth:QuestionableCompetitionMethodsProhibitionThroughFaithfulAgentBreach,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Applied to Engineer A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's competitive solicitation methods during employment" ;
proeth:balancingwith "At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's covert solicitation of Engineer B's current clients while employed constituted questionable methods of competition under Section III.7, because Engineer A knew or should have known the conduct was ethically problematic even if not certain it was a violation." ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The 'knew or should have known' standard applies to competition ethics: an engineer cannot escape a Section III.7 violation by claiming subjective uncertainty when the conduct was objectively dubious." ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Faithful Agent Breach" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board held that the faithful agent breach and the competition methods violation are co-extensive in this case; the same conduct violates both provisions." ;
proeth:textreferences "Even if Engineer A was not certain that the actions constituted unethical conduct, Engineer A knew or should have known that they were problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation.",
"It seems obvious that by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.",
"Therefore, we are of the view that Engineer A was in violation of Section III. 7." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.288570"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.288570
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction