Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 24-5 (2025) · Sustainable Development and Resilient Infrastructure

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 competition structure in OntServe
Featured
Engineer K Decision Deference Duty prevails over Engineer K Sustainability Promotion Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • City Officials Public Accountability
Engineer K Faithful Agent Duty prevails over Engineer K Sustainability Promotion Duty
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
  • City Officials Public Accountability
What the board concluded
  • Engineer K should present both approaches to the City if Engineer K believes both are viable solutions.
  • Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee. Engineer K is ethically obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations to the City and continue to design the Traditional Approach as approved by the City.
How comparable cases resolved this and related tensions

Read at the type level, this resolution is: Professional Accountability Obligation yields to Faithful Agent Obligation. Comparison across cases happens at this level; the duty types recur while each case's obligations instantiate them. Cases below are grouped by how much of that pairing they share. A duty type that yields here may prevail elsewhere, which is the context-dependence itself, not an inconsistency.

Same tension: both duty types match, so the board ruled on this exact pairing. Related tension: only one duty type matches; the other duty differs, so these show how a type behaves elsewhere rather than a ruling on this pairing.

Case Prevailing type Yielding type Relation to this case
Related tension: one duty type matches (15)

No other committed case closely matches this exact pair of obligations yet.