Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion Section)

DUAL PRINCIPLE EXTRACTION - Ethical Principles Analysis THEORETICAL CONTEXT (Chapter 2.2.2): - Principles are ABSTRACT ethical foundations requiring extensional definition through cases - They function like constitutional principles - open-textured and requiring interpretation - Principles mediate moral ideals into concrete reality through context-specific application - They cannot be applied deductively but require balancing and interpretation EXISTING PRINCIPLE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY: - Competence Principle: Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration. - Confidentiality Principle: Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements. - Domain-Specific Principle: Examples: Environmental Stewardship (engineering), Patient Autonomy (medicine), Academic Freedom (education). These address domain-specific ethical ch - Environmental Stewardship Principle: Bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities. - Ethical Principle: Legacy synonym for Principle. Use :Principle for new concepts. - Fundamental Ethical Principle: Examples: Public Welfare Paramount, Respect for Persons, Justice, Beneficence. These require extensive interpretation and balancing in specific contex - Integrity Principle: Central to professional identity formation and trust maintenance in professional relationships. - Principle: An information content entity representing ethical values and guidelines for conduct. This is the P component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,R - Principle Argument: An argument based on fundamental ethical principles or values. - Principle Refinement: Capability to evolve principles as inconsistencies are resolved and new cases are added (GenEth system, Anderson & Anderson 2018) - Professional Virtue Principle: Examples: Integrity, Competence, Honesty, Professional Courage, Accountability. These shape professional character and decision-making. - Public Welfare Principle: Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk. - Relational Principle: Examples: Confidentiality, Loyalty, Fairness, Transparency, Respect for Autonomy. These govern interpersonal professional dynamics. - Transparency Principle: Essential for maintaining trust and enabling stakeholder participation in professional decisions. === TASK === From the following case text (discussion section), extract information at TWO levels: LEVEL 1 - NEW PRINCIPLE CLASSES: Identify ethical principles that appear to be NEW types not covered by existing classes above. Look for: - Fundamental ethical values being invoked - Abstract moral ideals guiding decisions - Constitutional-like principles requiring interpretation - Values that transcend specific rules or obligations For each NEW principle class, provide: - label: Clear principle name (e.g., "Environmental Stewardship", "Professional Autonomy") - definition: What moral ideal this principle represents - abstract_nature: The abstract ethical foundation (justice, welfare, autonomy, etc.) - extensional_examples: Concrete cases/situations where this principle applies - value_basis: Core moral value underlying the principle - application_context: Professional domains or situations where relevant - operationalization: How this abstract principle becomes concrete in practice - balancing_requirements: What other principles it typically must be balanced against - examples_from_case: How this principle appears in the case text LEVEL 2 - PRINCIPLE INDIVIDUALS: Identify specific instances where principles are invoked or applied. For each instance: - identifier: Unique identifier for this principle instance (e.g., "PublicSafety_Case8_Discussion") - principle_class: Which principle class it instantiates (use existing classes when possible) - concrete_expression: EXACT text showing how the principle is expressed - invoked_by: Who invokes or appeals to this principle - applied_to: What decision/situation/dilemma it applies to - interpretation: How the principle is interpreted in this specific context - balancing_with: Other principles that must be balanced against it - tension_resolution: How conflicts between principles are resolved - case_relevance: Why this principle matters in this specific case IMPORTANT: - Focus on ABSTRACT ethical foundations, not specific rules or procedures - Principles are broader than obligations - they generate obligations in context - Use EXACT quotes from case text where principles are expressed - Distinguish between the abstract principle CLASS and its concrete APPLICATION CASE TEXT: This case presents the Board of Ethical Review with two matters for review. First, members of the public perceive the City Engineer J’ former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community. The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised. The second issue involves apparent design errors by Principal Engineer R. Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City’s requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions). The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ. BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J’s situation. In Case 14-8 , Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client, and that analysis was working its way through the court system. During the legal review, Engineer A resigned from the firm and went to work for the State – the State was an objector to the analysis A prepared. The Board was asked to weigh in on A’s ethical obligations. The BER case discussion noted Engineer A’s ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client. Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client. This discussion reveals a significant question for the present case, namely, when Engineer J left Firm BWJ and joined the City C. Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project for which the Board was rendering an opinion, in the present case the transition is implied to have been earlier, possibly many years ago. If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day. However, if Engineer J’s transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise. The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract. The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R’s actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM. We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance; the case discusses Engineer A’s work providing forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation. Before a legal settlement is reached and while negotiations are underway, Engineer A discovers that data their report was based on is inaccurate and that if more accurate data had been used, Engineer A's conclusions would be different. The Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions. Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM’s modeling show the subdivision created an issue. Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors. Although dealing with unethical use of an overbroad indemnification clause, BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind. In the present case, both actual flood damage and IBM’s modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C’s regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff. After reviewing and verifying IBM’s analysis and checking that analysis against R’s own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem. There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved. Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C. Respond with valid JSON in this format: { "new_principle_classes": [ { "label": "Sustainable Development", "definition": "Principle that engineering solutions must balance current needs with long-term environmental and societal impacts", "abstract_nature": "Intergenerational justice and environmental stewardship", "extensional_examples": ["Green building design", "Renewable energy projects", "Resource conservation"], "value_basis": "Responsibility to future generations", "application_context": ["Infrastructure projects", "Environmental engineering", "Urban planning"], "operationalization": "Through environmental impact assessments, lifecycle analysis, sustainable design criteria", "balancing_requirements": ["Economic feasibility", "Immediate safety needs", "Client requirements"], "examples_from_case": ["Engineer considered long-term environmental impacts", "balanced immediate needs with sustainability"], "source_text": "Engineer considered long-term environmental impacts and balanced immediate needs with sustainability" } ], "principle_individuals": [ { "identifier": "PublicSafety_Case8_Facts", "principle_class": "Public Safety", "concrete_expression": "the safety of the public must be held paramount", "invoked_by": ["Engineer L"], "applied_to": ["stormwater management system design"], "interpretation": "Safety considerations override cost savings in drainage design", "source_text": "the safety of the public must be held paramount", "balancing_with": ["Cost Efficiency", "Client Interests"], "tension_resolution": "Safety takes precedence even if it increases project costs", "case_relevance": "Critical for evaluating adequacy of proposed drainage solution" } ] }