Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 63-6 (1963) · Conflicting Engineering Opinions

Case Precedents
How this case resolved it

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

dissolution
Analytical conclusion 3: Regarding Q201, there is a latent but manageable tension...
Given that each engineer's employer had a direct stake in the outcome yet each submitted extensive supporting data, the board concluded that the objectivity-conviction tension is latent rather than disqualifying because the data allowed the conclusions to stand on their own engineering merits.
specification
Analytical conclusion 4: Regarding Q202 and Q203, Due Restraint in Public Criticis...
Given that the competing engineers vigorously contested each other's technical conclusions while (per the record) avoiding personal disparagement, the board concluded restraint and public welfare are reconciled procedurally, with restraint governing tone and public welfare justifying substantive vigor.
specification
Analytical conclusion 5: Regarding Q301, from a deontological perspective, each en...
Given that each engineer's public criticism was confined to engineering substance despite vigorous disagreement, the board concluded under a deontological framing that the duty of due restraint was fulfilled because restraint constrains manner, not the force of technical rebuttal.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 63-6:
  • It is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3