Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Competing_Public_Goods_Balancing_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Developer_vs_Upstream_Community
Properties
Instance of
CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles
Applied to
Client B Cost-Directing Developer
Local Permitting Regulatory Authority
Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uninhabitability — requiring Engineer A to present both goods and their trade-offs to Client B and the regulatory authority rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Interpretation
In this context, competing public goods balancing requires Engineer A to present the full trade-off between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare cost to upstream homeowners, and to recommend that the regulatory authority make the value trade-off decision through the public hearing process rather than allowing it to be resolved by default through the omission of specialized analysis
Invoked by
Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
Tension resolution
The competing public goods balancing principle requires Engineer A to present both goods transparently to decision-makers rather than allowing Client B's cost management preference to unilaterally resolve the trade-off in favor of the healthcare facility at the expense of upstream homeowners
Source Evidence
Source text
anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
Text references
Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
TTL
@prefix case88: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#> .
@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#> .
case88:Competing_Public_Goods_Balancing_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Developer_vs_Upstream_Community a proeth:CompetingPublicGoodsBalancinginEngineeringAdvisoryRoles,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community" ;
proeth:appliedto "Client B Cost-Directing Developer",
"Local Permitting Regulatory Authority",
"Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uninhabitability — requiring Engineer A to present both goods and their trade-offs to Client B and the regulatory authority rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "In this context, competing public goods balancing requires Engineer A to present the full trade-off between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare cost to upstream homeowners, and to recommend that the regulatory authority make the value trade-off decision through the public hearing process rather than allowing it to be resolved by default through the omission of specialized analysis" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles" ;
proeth:sourcetext "anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The competing public goods balancing principle requires Engineer A to present both goods transparently to decision-makers rather than allowing Client B's cost management preference to unilaterally resolve the trade-off in favor of the healthcare facility at the expense of upstream homeowners" ;
proeth:textreferences "Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities",
"anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings",
"it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 88 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T00:31:11.063082"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 88 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
88
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
First case
88
Generated
2026-02-26T00:13:22.311648+00:00
Attributed to
Case 88 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-26T00:31:11.063082
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction