DP10
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP10
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP10
Decision question
Once Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, what is Engineer A's ethically required course of action — continue pursuing discussions with the client, withdraw from the project, or accept a modified standard that partially addresses the risk?
Focus
Engineer A's response to Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard: whether to continue advocating, withdraw, or seek a negotiated compromise below the safety threshold
Option1
Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable public safety consequences of refusing the 100-year standard, document the recommendation and refusal in writing, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous
Option2
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's first explicit refusal of the 100-year standard, without further discussion, on the grounds that any continued engagement after an unambiguous safety-critical rejection constitutes tacit acquiescence
Option3
Remain on the project and negotiate a modified storm surge elevation standard that partially closes the gap between Client A's cost preference and the 100-year projection, on the grounds that some improvement over the baseline is better than none and that withdrawal leaves the project to a less safety-conscious engineer
Role
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer
TTL
@prefix case87: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#> .
@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#> .
case87:DP10 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Once Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, what is Engineer A's ethically required course of action — continue pursuing discussions with the client, withdraw from the project, or accept a modified standard that partially addresses the risk?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's response to Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard: whether to continue advocating, withdraw, or seek a negotiated compromise below the safety threshold" ;
proeth:option1 "Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable public safety consequences of refusing the 100-year standard, document the recommendation and refusal in writing, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous" ;
proeth:option2 "Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's first explicit refusal of the 100-year standard, without further discussion, on the grounds that any continued engagement after an unambiguous safety-critical rejection constitutes tacit acquiescence" ;
proeth:option3 "Remain on the project and negotiate a modified storm surge elevation standard that partially closes the gap between Client A's cost preference and the 100-year projection, on the grounds that some improvement over the baseline is better than none and that withdrawal leaves the project to a less safety-conscious engineer" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.760551"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.760551
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction