Going-Along Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/89#Going-Along_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A_Post-Client-Refusal
Properties
Instance of
Going-AlongProhibitionWhenSafetyConcernsAreReal
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Going-AlongProhibitionWhenSafetyConcernsAreReal
Applied to
Engineer A's continuation of project work after client refused on-site representative recommendation
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer A's genuine safety concern — that the dangerous construction project required a full-time on-site representative — was rejected by the client on cost grounds, and Engineer A then proceeded without dissent or comment, which constitutes the ethically prohibited 'going along' behavior
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
The Board's finding that Engineer A 'went along without dissent or comment' is the paradigm case of the going-along prohibition — the engineer's safety concerns were real, the client rejected them, and the engineer proceeded as if the concerns did not exist
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
Going-along prohibition prevails; the engineer cannot treat client economic rejection of a safety recommendation as ethically equivalent to the safety concern being resolved
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment. If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Text references
Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment
If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
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 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:Going-Along_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_A_Post-Client-Refusal a proeth:Going-AlongProhibitionWhenSafetyConcernsAreReal,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Going-Along Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's continuation of project work after client refused on-site representative recommendation" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's genuine safety concern — that the dangerous construction project required a full-time on-site representative — was rejected by the client on cost grounds, and Engineer A then proceeded without dissent or comment, which constitutes the ethically prohibited 'going along' behavior" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "89" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T18:14:32.608873+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "89" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T18:14:32.608873+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The Board's finding that Engineer A 'went along without dissent or comment' is the paradigm case of the going-along prohibition — the engineer's safety concerns were real, the client rejected them, and the engineer proceeded as if the concerns did not exist" ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Going-Along Prohibition When Safety Concerns Are Real" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment. If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Going-along prohibition prevails; the engineer cannot treat client economic rejection of a safety recommendation as ethically equivalent to the safety concern being resolved" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment",
"If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 89 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T18:38:27.071176"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 89 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
89
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T18:14:32.608873+00:00
First case
89
Generated
2026-03-01T18:14:32.608873+00:00
Attributed to
Case 89 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T18:38:27.071176
Generated by
ProEthica Case 89 Extraction