DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
Should Engineer A's disclosure decision be conditioned on the contingent presence of other witnesses who may supply adverse impact information, or should Engineer A treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear — particularly given that the Board's ethical conclusion would change if those witnesses had not testified?
Focus
The ethical soundness of Engineer A's non-volunteering posture is contingent on the institutional assumption that other independent witnesses will appear and testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically is materially dependent on this contingent fact. Engineer A must consider, at the time of deciding how to present, whether reliance on the multi-witness process is ethically justified when there is no guarantee that other witnesses will appear or adequately cover the adverse impacts.
Option1
Proceed with the benefits-focused presentation without volunteering adverse impacts, treating the adversarial multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing as a sufficient institutional mechanism to supply complete information to the Board — accepting that this reliance is ethically permissible only so long as Engineer A does not affirmatively suppress information and answers all direct questions honestly.
Option2
Treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear, and proactively volunteer the known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts during Engineer A's own testimony — recognizing that the ethical permissibility of non-volunteering is contingent on institutional completeness that cannot be guaranteed in advance, and that the public welfare paramount obligation does not diminish based on the anticipated actions of third parties.
Option3
Before the hearing, ascertain whether independent engineers or other witnesses are confirmed to testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; if confirmed, rely on the multi-witness process and omit proactive disclosure; if not confirmed, treat the absence of other witnesses as eliminating the institutional completeness justification and volunteer the adverse impacts during Engineer A's own testimony.
Role
Engineer A — Retained Engineer Deciding Disclosure Posture in Advance of Multi-Witness Public Hearing
TTL
@prefix case94: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#> .
@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#> .
case94:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A's disclosure decision be conditioned on the contingent presence of other witnesses who may supply adverse impact information, or should Engineer A treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear — particularly given that the Board's ethical conclusion would change if those witnesses had not testified?" ;
proeth:focus "The ethical soundness of Engineer A's non-volunteering posture is contingent on the institutional assumption that other independent witnesses will appear and testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A acted ethically is materially dependent on this contingent fact. Engineer A must consider, at the time of deciding how to present, whether reliance on the multi-witness process is ethically justified when there is no guarantee that other witnesses will appear or adequately cover the adverse impacts." ;
proeth:option1 "Proceed with the benefits-focused presentation without volunteering adverse impacts, treating the adversarial multi-witness structure of the City Planning Board hearing as a sufficient institutional mechanism to supply complete information to the Board — accepting that this reliance is ethically permissible only so long as Engineer A does not affirmatively suppress information and answers all direct questions honestly." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the disclosure obligation as independent of whether other witnesses appear, and proactively volunteer the known traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts during Engineer A's own testimony — recognizing that the ethical permissibility of non-volunteering is contingent on institutional completeness that cannot be guaranteed in advance, and that the public welfare paramount obligation does not diminish based on the anticipated actions of third parties." ;
proeth:option3 "Before the hearing, ascertain whether independent engineers or other witnesses are confirmed to testify about adverse traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; if confirmed, rely on the multi-witness process and omit proactive disclosure; if not confirmed, treat the absence of other witnesses as eliminating the institutional completeness justification and volunteer the adverse impacts during Engineer A's own testimony." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A — Retained Engineer Deciding Disclosure Posture in Advance of Multi-Witness Public Hearing" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T21:06:52.155942"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T21:06:52.155942
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction