Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Failure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Engineer_A_Competing_Confidentiality-Safety_Code_Provision_Contextual_Balancing_Failure
Properties
Instance of
CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
Case context
Engineer A failed to perform the required contextual balancing between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount public safety obligation, instead applying Section III.4 in isolation and treating it as an absolute bar to disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disclosure rather than treating the confidentiality provision as absolute.
Temporal scope
Upon discovery of the conflict between confidentiality and public safety obligations
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
Source Evidence
Source text
The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
Text references
The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
TTL
@prefix case84: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case84:Engineer_A_Competing_Confidentiality-Safety_Code_Provision_Contextual_Balancing_Failure a proeth:CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Failure" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case84:Confidentiality_Instruction_Suppressing_Safety_Report_to_Third_Parties ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A failed to perform the required contextual balancing between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount public safety obligation, instead applying Section III.4 in isolation and treating it as an absolute bar to disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Competing_Code_Provision_Contextual_Balancing_—_III.4_vs._II.1.a._vs._II.1.c.> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disclosure rather than treating the confidentiality provision as absolute." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon discovery of the conflict between confidentiality and public safety obligations" ;
proeth:textreferences "The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.",
"While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 84 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:56:58.162365"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 84 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
84
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
First case
84
Generated
2026-03-01T13:47:29.003693+00:00
Attributed to
Case 84 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T13:56:58.162365
Generated by
ProEthica Case 84 Extraction