Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 73-9 (1973) · Endorsement of Project by Local Chapter
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
Engineers A and B Compensated Civic Engineering Participation Permissibility
prevails over
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Advantage Threshold
- Engineers A and B Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation
Local Chapter Independent Judgment Non-Deference to Engineers A and B Membership
prevails over
Local Chapter Independent Technical Endorsement Judgment Route Y
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Local Chapter Independent Judgment Presumption
Engineer A Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Route Study
prevails over
Engineer A Honest Disagreement With State Highway Department Route X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Highway Route Technical Controversy
Engineer A Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity
prevails over
Engineers A and B Citizen-Retained Route Study Objectivity Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Civic Advocacy Engagement
Ethics Board Chapter Function Preservation Non-Restrictive Code Interpretation
prevails over
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Advantage Threshold
- Engineers A and B Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation
Featured
Engineer B Retained Advocate Chapter Presentation Full Disclosure
prevails over
Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Between Client Loyalty and Professional Society Objectivity
- Engineer B Firm-Partner Advocacy Alignment
- Engineer B Society Endorsement Solicitation
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity vs Engineer A Route Y Complete Comparative Analysis
Engineer B Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Chapter Presentation vs Engineer B Transparent Advocacy Through Legitimate Channels Chapter Presentation
Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility vs Engineer B Voluntary Membership Ethics Acceptance Chapter Presentation
Engineers A and B Fact-Based Route Y Advocacy Obligation vs Engineers A and B Honest Disagreement With State Highway Department Route X Permissibility
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment vs Engineers A and B Retainer Disclosure to Chapter Obligation
What the board concluded
- It is ethical for a partner of Engineer A to request the local chapter to endorse a project in which he is directly involved.
- It is ethical for members of the local chapter to take a public position on a controversial question in which a member of the chapter is involved.