Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 63-6 (1963) · Conflicting Engineering Opinions
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Private Power Company PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Private Power Company Engineer Legislative Testimony
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Criticism Permissibility Recognition
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition
prevails over
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
State Power Commission PE Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- State Power Commission Engineer Legislative Testimony
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
prevails over
State Power Commission PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
prevails over
Dam Design Legislative Debate Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Multi-Year Public Infrastructure Policy Controversy
Private Power Company PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
prevails over
Private Power Company PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Forum Non-Interference with Legislative Duty
prevails over
Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
State Power Commission PE Adverse Technical Finding Non-Malicious Non-Violation
prevails over
State Power Commission PE Peer Criticism Professional Deportment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Inter-Engineer Technical Criticism at Legislative Hearing
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
BER — Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Non-Indictment Recognition vs BER — Public Policy Override Non-Ethical-Indictment of Efficiency-Advocate Engineer
Private Power Company PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
Private Power Company PE Fact-Grounded High-Dam Opinion vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
Private Power Company PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation vs Private Power Company PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State Power Commission PE Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
State Power Commission PE Fact-Grounded Low-Dams Opinion vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Witness — Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment
State Power Commission PE Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Violation vs State Power Commission PE Legislative Testimony Objectivity
What the board concluded
- 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.