DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/79#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
May Engineer A use his benevolent motive — securing desperately needed inspectors for the public good — and a competing public goods trade-off analysis to justify concurring with the grandfathering ordinance?
Focus
Engineer A is tempted to rationalize his concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance by framing it as a trade-off between two competing public goods: the public benefit of rigorous code enforcement on one hand, and the public benefit of adequate inspection staffing on the other. He genuinely and praiseworthy believes that securing additional inspectors serves the public welfare, and he may reason that the net effect of the bargain is positive. He must decide whether this benevolent motive and competing-goods framing renders his concurrence ethically permissible.
Option1
Conclude that the trade-off between two genuine public goods — rigorous code enforcement and adequate inspection staffing — is a legitimate basis for professional judgment, and that the net public welfare benefit of the bargain renders concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance ethically permissible despite the reduction in code enforcement standards.
Option2
Recognize that benevolent motive and a favorable net-benefit calculation do not cure the ethical violation of trading safety code integrity as a negotiable commodity, refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance, and communicate to the chairman that the public welfare paramount obligation cannot be discharged by trading one public safety harm for another.
Option3
Formally document the competing public goods tension — the genuine public safety value of both rigorous code enforcement and adequate staffing — and escalate the decision to city administration or city council as a whole, refusing to resolve the tension unilaterally through a private bargain with the chairman and insisting that the trade-off, if any, be made transparently by the appropriate political authority rather than by the building department director.
Role
Engineer A Building Inspection Director Benevolent Motive Non-Justification
TTL
@prefix case79: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/79#> .
@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#> .
case79:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "May Engineer A use his benevolent motive — securing desperately needed inspectors for the public good — and a competing public goods trade-off analysis to justify concurring with the grandfathering ordinance?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A is tempted to rationalize his concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance by framing it as a trade-off between two competing public goods: the public benefit of rigorous code enforcement on one hand, and the public benefit of adequate inspection staffing on the other. He genuinely and praiseworthy believes that securing additional inspectors serves the public welfare, and he may reason that the net effect of the bargain is positive. He must decide whether this benevolent motive and competing-goods framing renders his concurrence ethically permissible." ;
proeth:option1 "Conclude that the trade-off between two genuine public goods — rigorous code enforcement and adequate inspection staffing — is a legitimate basis for professional judgment, and that the net public welfare benefit of the bargain renders concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance ethically permissible despite the reduction in code enforcement standards." ;
proeth:option2 "Recognize that benevolent motive and a favorable net-benefit calculation do not cure the ethical violation of trading safety code integrity as a negotiable commodity, refuse concurrence with the grandfathering ordinance, and communicate to the chairman that the public welfare paramount obligation cannot be discharged by trading one public safety harm for another." ;
proeth:option3 "Formally document the competing public goods tension — the genuine public safety value of both rigorous code enforcement and adequate staffing — and escalate the decision to city administration or city council as a whole, refusing to resolve the tension unilaterally through a private bargain with the chairman and insisting that the trade-off, if any, be made transparently by the appropriate political authority rather than by the building department director." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Building Inspection Director Benevolent Motive Non-Justification" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T07:32:23.892372"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 79 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T07:32:23.892372
Generated by
ProEthica Case 79 Extraction