Honest Disagreement Among Engineers Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution

@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 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:Honest_Disagreement_Among_Engineers_Present_Case_Traffic_Noise_Air_Pollution a proeth:HonestDisagreementAmongQualifiedEngineersPermissibilityPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Honest Disagreement Among Engineers Present Case Traffic Noise Air Pollution" ; proeth:appliedto "Multiple engineers reaching different conclusions at the same public hearing", "Waterfront development traffic, noise, and air pollution impact disclosure question" ; proeth:balancingwith "Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation", "Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board applied the BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 precedents to the present case to establish that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts — including whether traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' — and that the other hearing engineers' independent testimony about those impacts did not render Engineer A's non-disclosure unethical." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "94" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The fact that other engineers at the hearing testified about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts does not mean Engineer A was obligated to do so; the public hearing process accommodates multiple engineers reaching different conclusions about what is relevant and pertinent." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer Present Case", "Other Hearing Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer" ; proeth:principleclass "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolved the tension by holding that the public hearing process itself — with multiple witnesses — supplies the information that any single engineer may not volunteer, so Engineer A's non-disclosure was not unethical given his professional judgment that the impacts were not relevant and pertinent." ; proeth:textreferences "That … conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.", "The Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts.", "While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.765955"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .