Skip to content

Nine-Component Framework

ProEthica employs a nine-component formal framework to capture the essential elements of professional ethical evaluation. This framework, defined as D = (R, P, O, S, Rs, A, E, Ca, Cs), synthesizes concepts from computational ethics literature into a unified structure.

Framework Overview

The nine elements organize into three functional dimensions:

Dimension Elements Function
Contextual Grounding Roles (R), States (S), Resources (Rs) Determines which ethical considerations apply
Normative Structure Principles (P), Obligations (O), Constraints (Cs), Capabilities (Ca) Provides the evaluation framework
Temporal Dynamics Actions (A), Events (E) Tracks how situations evolve 
Roles (R)
    | generate
Principles (P)
    | specify
Obligations (O)
    | apply within
States (S) + Resources (Rs)
    | precipitate
Events (E) --> Actions (A)
    | bounded by
Capabilities (Ca) + Constraints (Cs)

Contextual Grounding Elements

These elements determine which ethical considerations apply based on professional position, situational circumstances, and accumulated precedents.

Roles (R)

Definition: Professional positions with associated duties, responsibilities, and decision-making authority.

Roles filter which principles and obligations apply based on professional identity. Each profession serves distinctive human goods and maintains unique normative commitments, requiring domain-specific customization. An engineer's obligation to protect public safety differs fundamentally from a lawyer's duty of zealous advocacy or a physician's commitment to patient welfare.

Examples:

  • Engineer
  • Client
  • Employer
  • Public Official
  • Consulting Engineer

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Role, subclass of BFO:role. Subclasses in proethica-intermediate.ttl include ProfessionalRole, InstitutionalRole, StakeholderRole.

Key Literature: Oakley & Cocking (2001) on role-generated obligations; Kong et al. (2020) on identity virtues; Doernberg & Truog (2023) on sphere-based roles. Full references

States (S)

Definition: Situational context including facts, environmental conditions, and system status.

States capture the specific circumstances that affect ethical evaluation. Identical professional actions carry different ethical weight depending on the state. Context extends beyond technical parameters to include social and cultural factors that shape ethical acceptability.

Examples:

  • Engineer lacks AI competence
  • Client has limited budget
  • Project deadline is imminent
  • Public safety is at risk

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:State, subclass of BFO:quality. Represents time-varying properties (fluents) that affect ethical assessment.

Key Literature: Jones (1991) on moral intensity; Almpani et al. (2023) on Event Calculus; Berreby et al. (2017) on fluents; Sarmiento et al. (2023) on causal chains. Full references

Resources (Rs)

Definition: Accumulated professional knowledge including codes, precedents, and practices.

Resources supply the established wisdom and standards of the profession. McLaren (2003) argues that professional ethical knowledge exists primarily in precedents rather than abstract rules. The meaning of fundamental ethical standards emerges through accumulated cases, not through philosophical analysis alone.

Examples:

  • NSPE Code of Ethics II.1.a (competence requirement)
  • State licensing regulations
  • Industry technical standards
  • Prior board decisions

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Resource, subclass of BFO:independent continuant. Linked to IAO documents via refersToDocument property.

Key Literature: McLaren (2003) on precedents; Davis (1991) and Frankel (1989) on codes; Harris et al. (2018) on decision procedures; Anderson & Anderson (2018) on GenEth learning. Full references

Normative Structure Elements

These elements transform high-level ethical ideals into concrete professional requirements.

Principles (P)

Definition: High-level ethical guidelines that establish professional ideals.

Principles provide abstract guidance that must be interpreted through precedents. McLaren (2003) notes that principles contain open-textured terms that resist precise definition, making them subject to interpretation in different contexts. Without precedent-based grounding, principles remain too abstract for operational guidance.

Examples:

  • Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
  • Perform services only in areas of competence
  • Act as faithful agents or trustees
  • Avoid deceptive acts

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Principle, subclass of IAO:information content entity. Subclasses in proethica-intermediate.ttl include FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple.

Key Literature: McLaren (2003) on extensional definition; Prem (2023) on abstract nature; Taddeo et al. (2024) on constitutional interpretation. Full references

Obligations (O)

Definition: Specific requirements for action or restraint.

Obligations transform principles into concrete, evaluable professional requirements. Unlike principles that provide general guidance, obligations establish the specific requirements necessary for evaluation. Dennis et al. (2016) emphasize that obligations require complete specification to be computationally verifiable.

Examples:

  • Verify AI-generated designs before certification
  • Disclose conflicts of interest to clients
  • Maintain confidentiality of client information
  • Report safety violations to appropriate authorities

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Obligation, subclass of IAO:information content entity. Extracted from NSPE Code provisions and case narratives.

Key Literature: Dennis et al. (2016) on specification requirements; Anderson & Anderson (2006, 2007, 2011) on duty quantification; Almpani et al. (2023) on dynamic priorities. Full references

Constraints (Cs)

Definition: Inviolable boundaries that cannot be crossed regardless of benefits.

Constraints establish hard limits on professional behavior, defining what must never be done. Systems must verify constraints before evaluating trade-offs among competing obligations. Professional ethical evaluation cannot occur without first establishing which actions fall outside acceptable boundaries.

Examples:

  • Cannot certify work beyond competence
  • Cannot misrepresent qualifications
  • Cannot prioritize profit over safety
  • Cannot disclose confidential information improperly

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Constraint, subclass of IAO:information content entity. Distinguished from Obligations by expressing prohibitions rather than requirements.

Key Literature: Ganascia (2007) on defeasible logic; Dennis et al. (2016) on hierarchical management; Arkin (2008) on ethical governors. Full references

Capabilities (Ca)

Definition: Competencies spanning norm competence, situational awareness, learning, and explanation abilities.

Capabilities ensure sufficient expertise for professional practice. Tolmeijer et al. (2021) identify four essential capability types: norm competence, situational awareness, learning and adaptation, and explanation and justification. These capabilities define prescriptive requirements for systems that support professional judgment.

Examples:

  • Can hire specialists for areas outside competence
  • Can request additional time for proper review
  • Can consult with ethics board
  • Can decline work outside expertise

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Capability, subclass of BFO:realizable entity. Represents what professionals may do (permissions).

Key Literature: Narvaez & Rest (1995) on Four Component Model; Tolmeijer et al. (2021) on four requirements; Berreby et al. (2017) on Action Model; Epstein & Hundert (2002) on domain-specific judgment. Full references

Temporal Dynamics Elements

These elements track how professional scenarios evolve over time through actions and events.

Actions (A)

Definition: Volitional professional interventions that carry ethical weight.

Actions represent deliberate choices with professional responsibility. Systems must separate Actions from Events through attribution of responsibility, as professional accountability attaches only to volitional interventions. Action evaluation must account for complexity in professional judgment, including cases where omission carries liability.

Examples:

  • Uses AI without verification (action taken)
  • Hire specialist consultant (alternative)
  • Decline project (alternative)
  • Request deadline extension (alternative)

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Action, subclass of BFO:process. Distinguished from Events by volitional nature.

Key Literature: Sarmiento et al. (2023) on volitional nature; Bonnemains et al. (2018) on multi-framework evaluation; Govindarajulu & Bringsjord (2017) on intentional status. Full references

Events (E)

Definition: Occurrences originating outside agent control that affect evaluation.

Events capture temporal dynamics and external triggers. The Event Calculus framework formally distinguishes between agent-caused outcomes (Actions) and exogenous occurrences. Events modify fluents and trigger new obligations to generate state transitions that create the temporal context for professional evaluation.

Examples:

  • Client requests AI-assisted design
  • Engineer discovers safety flaw
  • Competitor makes job offer
  • Deadline arrives

Ontology Source: Defined in proethica-core.ttl as proeth-core:Event, subclass of BFO:process. Represents external occurrences distinct from volitional Actions.

Key Literature: Berreby et al. (2017) on exogenous occurrences; Event Calculus formalism; Arkin (2008) on emergency overrides. Full references

Extraction Process

ProEthica extracts these nine concepts through three steps. Each step extracts from both Pass 1 (Facts section) and Pass 2 (Discussion section):

Step 1: Contextual Framework

Extracts foundational elements that establish the scenario context:

Concept Typical Count Focus
Roles 3-6 Professional positions identified
States 10-20 Situational conditions
Resources 15-30 Referenced standards and codes

Step 2: Normative Requirements

Extracts ethical framework elements:

Concept Typical Count Focus
Principles 15-25 Abstract ethical standards
Obligations 15-25 Concrete duties
Constraints 15-20 Prohibitions and limits
Capabilities 15-25 Permissions and options

Step 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extracts action and event sequences:

Concept Typical Count Focus
Events 3-8 Precipitating occurrences
Actions 5-12 Professional responses
Relations 10-20 Temporal and causal links

Step 4: Synthesis

Analyzes extracted entities to produce decision points, arguments, and narrative structures.

Theoretical Foundations

The framework synthesizes three foundational works:

Work Contribution Elements
McLaren (2003) Extensional definition of principles through precedents R, Rs, P
Berreby et al. (2017) Modular architecture for temporal ethical reasoning S, A, E, O
Tolmeijer et al. (2021) Essential capabilities for ethical agents Ca, Cs

For complete academic references with DOIs and citations, see References.