DP9
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#DP9
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP9
Decision question
Should Engineer A treat the obligation to protect public safety as a risk-based duty requiring withdrawal once a foreseeable danger is identified and the client refuses the recommended safeguard, or as an outcome-contingent obligation that permits proceeding so long as harm has not yet materialized and the lower state board standard is satisfied?
Focus
Engineer A's Ethical Standard Governing the Decision to Proceed: Risk-Based Duty vs. Outcome-Based Harm, and the Role of NSPE Membership in Foreclosing Lower-Standard Defenses
Option1
Treat the identification of a foreseeable, non-speculative danger as the trigger for the paramount safety obligation, recognize that the ethical violation is complete at the moment of proceeding with a known unmitigated risk regardless of whether harm materializes, and withdraw from the project as required by the NSPE Code's higher standard to which voluntary membership commits Engineer A.
Option2
Treat the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct as the operative floor of obligation, proceed with the project on the basis that the NSPE Code's stricter withdrawal requirement is an aspirational standard not binding as a matter of professional discipline, and satisfy the lower mandatory standard by having made and documented the safety recommendation.
Option3
Proceed with the project while applying heightened professional vigilance during the construction phase — including increased periodic site visits and written safety advisories — on the theory that the danger is foreseeable but not near-certain, and that remaining engaged as the safety-aware engineer of record produces better expected outcomes than withdrawal and replacement with a less safety-conscious successor.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case89: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#> .
@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#> .
case89:DP9 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A treat the obligation to protect public safety as a risk-based duty requiring withdrawal once a foreseeable danger is identified and the client refuses the recommended safeguard, or as an outcome-contingent obligation that permits proceeding so long as harm has not yet materialized and the lower state board standard is satisfied?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's Ethical Standard Governing the Decision to Proceed: Risk-Based Duty vs. Outcome-Based Harm, and the Role of NSPE Membership in Foreclosing Lower-Standard Defenses" ;
proeth:option1 "Treat the identification of a foreseeable, non-speculative danger as the trigger for the paramount safety obligation, recognize that the ethical violation is complete at the moment of proceeding with a known unmitigated risk regardless of whether harm materializes, and withdraw from the project as required by the NSPE Code's higher standard to which voluntary membership commits Engineer A." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct as the operative floor of obligation, proceed with the project on the basis that the NSPE Code's stricter withdrawal requirement is an aspirational standard not binding as a matter of professional discipline, and satisfy the lower mandatory standard by having made and documented the safety recommendation." ;
proeth:option3 "Proceed with the project while applying heightened professional vigilance during the construction phase — including increased periodic site visits and written safety advisories — on the theory that the danger is foreseeable but not near-certain, and that remaining engaged as the safety-aware engineer of record produces better expected outcomes than withdrawal and replacement with a less safety-conscious successor." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:54:18.794021"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 89 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T18:54:18.794021
Generated by
ProEthica Case 89 Extraction