Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the discussion section
Sustainability - Lawn Irrigation Design
Step 2 of 5
Discussion Section
Section Content:
Discussion: The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics. This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges. The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.” BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion. Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters. Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns. It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension? Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform. Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic. What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory. But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned. As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Principles Extraction
LLM Prompt
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:
The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges.
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.”
BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion.
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters.
Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension?
Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform.
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic.
What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory.
But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
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"
}
]
}
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:59
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Responsible Dissent Principle",
"definition": "The principle that engineers have a right and sometimes obligation to refuse tasks they believe are unethical, while balancing this against obligations to employers and clients",
"abstract_nature": "Professional autonomy and moral conscience",
"extensional_examples": ["Refusing unsafe designs", "Declining environmentally harmful projects", "Whistleblowing on unethical practices"],
"value_basis": "Professional integrity and moral autonomy",
"application_context": ["Employment conflicts", "Ethical dilemmas", "Sustainability disputes"],
"operationalization": "Through formal objection processes, alternative solution proposals, or ultimately resignation",
"balancing_requirements": ["Faithful agent obligations", "Employment duties", "Client interests"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer's right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical", "Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation system design task"],
"source_text": "an engineer's right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical"
},
{
"label": "Greatest Good Principle",
"definition": "The utilitarian principle that engineering decisions should favor solutions that provide the maximum benefit to the largest number of people",
"abstract_nature": "Utilitarian welfare maximization",
"extensional_examples": ["Infrastructure routing decisions", "Public works projects", "Resource allocation"],
"value_basis": "Collective welfare and social utility",
"application_context": ["Public infrastructure", "Eminent domain cases", "Resource management"],
"operationalization": "Through cost-benefit analysis, stakeholder impact assessments, public consultation",
"balancing_requirements": ["Individual property rights", "Historical preservation", "Minority interests"],
"examples_from_case": ["The rule in favor of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' in the farmhouse case"],
"source_text": "the rule in favor of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' should prevail"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "SustainableDevelopment_NSPE_Code",
"principle_class": "Environmental Stewardship Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Code of Ethics"],
"applied_to": ["All engineering projects with environmental impact"],
"interpretation": "Encouragement rather than mandatory requirement to consider sustainability",
"source_text": "Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations",
"balancing_with": ["Client requirements", "Economic feasibility"],
"tension_resolution": "Treated as aspirational guidance rather than mandatory obligation",
"case_relevance": "Central to Wasser's ethical dilemma about irrigation system design"
},
{
"identifier": "FaithfulAgent_Wasser_Obligation",
"principle_class": "Relational Principle",
"concrete_expression": "engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Code", "BER"],
"applied_to": ["Wasser's relationship with Cutting Edge"],
"interpretation": "Mandatory obligation to complete assigned tasks accepted by employer",
"source_text": "engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees",
"balancing_with": ["Sustainable development principles", "Personal convictions"],
"tension_resolution": "Faithful agent duty is mandatory while sustainability is encouraged",
"case_relevance": "Creates tension with Wasser's sustainability concerns"
},
{
"identifier": "ResponsibleDissent_Wasser_Right",
"principle_class": "Responsible Dissent Principle",
"concrete_expression": "the engineer's right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern",
"invoked_by": ["BER discussion"],
"applied_to": ["Wasser's refusal to design irrigation system"],
"interpretation": "Dissent is ethically permissible but not obligatory when task is not unethical",
"source_text": "the engineer's right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern",
"balancing_with": ["Faithful agent obligations", "Employment duties"],
"tension_resolution": "Dissent allowed but may create career issues if not aligned with employer",
"case_relevance": "Addresses whether Wasser can refuse the design task"
},
{
"identifier": "GreatestGood_BER_Case15-12",
"principle_class": "Greatest Good Principle",
"concrete_expression": "the rule in favor of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' should prevail",
"invoked_by": ["BER in Case 15-12"],
"applied_to": ["Road routing decision affecting historic farmhouse"],
"interpretation": "Generally favors public benefit over individual property rights but seeks creative alternatives",
"source_text": "the rule in favor of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case",
"balancing_with": ["Individual property rights", "Historical preservation"],
"tension_resolution": "Prevails generally but creative solutions should be sought",
"case_relevance": "Illustrates how competing interests are balanced in engineering decisions"
},
{
"identifier": "ProfessionalJudgment_Environmental",
"principle_class": "Professional Virtue Principle",
"concrete_expression": "professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation",
"invoked_by": ["BER in earlier cases"],
"applied_to": ["Environmental trade-off decisions"],
"interpretation": "Individual engineer's judgment determines environmental balance (pre-2007 view)",
"source_text": "professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable",
"balancing_with": ["Environmental concerns", "Societal needs"],
"tension_resolution": "Shifted post-2007 toward broader sustainability considerations",
"case_relevance": "Shows evolution of BER's approach to environmental ethics"
},
{
"identifier": "Truthfulness_BER_Case07-6",
"principle_class": "Integrity Principle",
"concrete_expression": "engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information",
"invoked_by": ["BER in Case 07-6"],
"applied_to": ["Reporting threat to bird species in wetlands development"],
"interpretation": "Requires disclosure of all environmentally relevant information",
"source_text": "engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports",
"balancing_with": ["Client interests", "Project approval"],
"tension_resolution": "Truthfulness obligation overrides client preferences for non-disclosure",
"case_relevance": "Demonstrates post-2007 emphasis on environmental disclosure"
},
{
"identifier": "HarmonizingObligations_Wasser_Solution",
"principle_class": "Environmental Stewardship Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d",
"invoked_by": ["BER"],
"applied_to": ["Resolution of irrigation system design dilemma"],
"interpretation": "Integrate sustainability principles through offering green alternatives rather than refusing task",
"source_text": "Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d",
"balancing_with": ["Faithful agent duty", "Client autonomy"],
"tension_resolution": "Propose sustainable alternatives while respecting client's final decision",
"case_relevance": "BER's recommended approach to resolve the ethical tension"
}
]
}
```
Obligations Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for obligations (professional duties and requirements).
Based on the literature:
- Obligations are CONCRETE PROFESSIONAL DUTIES derived from abstract principles (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- They specify what professionals MUST, SHOULD, or MUST NOT do (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Obligations have deontic force and are enforceable (Wooldridge & Jennings 1995)
- They operationalize principles in specific contexts (Kong et al. 2020)
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW OBLIGATION CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC OBLIGATION INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING OBLIGATIONS IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified obligations match these before creating new classes):
- Attribution Obligation: Duty to properly cite and acknowledge all sources, tools, and methods used in creating professional deliverables
- Collegial Obligation: Duties toward professional peers including respect, fairness, and credit for work
- Competence Obligation: Requirement to perform services only in areas of competence (NSPE II.2)
- Conditional Obligation: Obligations that apply only when specific conditions are met
- Confidentiality Obligation: Duty to protect confidential information of clients or employers (NSPE III.4)
- Defeasible Obligation: Obligations that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
- Disclosure Obligation: Requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts, limitations, or risks (NSPE II.3.a)
- Ethical Obligation: Obligations arising from ethical principles beyond legal requirements
- Legal Obligation: Obligations arising from legal requirements and regulations
- Mandatory Obligation: Obligations that MUST be fulfilled (deontic force: mandatory)
- Obligation: An information content entity expressing required actions or behaviors in professional contexts. This is the O component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Prima Facie Obligation: Obligations that hold at first appearance but may be overridden by stronger duties (Anderson & Anderson)
- Professional Obligation: A duty or responsibility arising from professional role or standards
- Quality Assurance Obligation: Requirement to implement appropriate review and verification processes for all professional deliverables before submission
- Reporting Obligation: Duty to report violations or unsafe conditions to appropriate authorities
- Responsible Charge Obligation: Duty to maintain active engagement and personal decision-making authority throughout engineering process from conception to completion
- Safety Obligation: Duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (NSPE I.1)
- Technology Competence Obligation: Requirement to understand and verify the capabilities, limitations, and risks of technological tools used in professional practice
- Technology Verification Obligation: Requirement to thoroughly verify and validate outputs from technological tools including AI before incorporating them into professional work
Analyze this discussion section:
The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges.
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.”
BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion.
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters.
Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension?
Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform.
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic.
What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory.
But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Extract obligations following this JSON structure:
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific obligation class name",
"definition": "What this type of obligation requires professionals to do",
"derived_from_principle": "Which principle this operationalizes (e.g., 'Public Safety', 'Honesty')",
"duty_type": "professional|legal|ethical|societal",
"enforcement_mechanism": "How this obligation is typically enforced",
"violation_consequences": "What happens when this obligation is violated",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this obligation is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific obligation instance",
"obligation_class": "Name of the obligation class (new or existing)",
"obligated_party": "Who has this obligation (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'All Licensed PEs')",
"obligation_statement": "The specific duty statement (e.g., 'Report safety risks to authorities')",
"derived_from": "Source principle or law (e.g., 'NSPE Code', 'State Law')",
"enforcement_context": "How enforced in this case",
"temporal_scope": "When this obligation applies",
"compliance_status": "met|unmet|unclear|pending",
"case_context": "How this obligation manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this obligation is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW obligation types that represent novel professional duties
2. Specific obligation instances showing how duties apply in this case
3. The relationship between obligations and the principles they operationalize
4. Enforcement mechanisms and compliance status
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:59
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Faithful Agency Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee for each employer or client, fulfilling agreed-upon tasks and responsibilities",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Loyalty and Trust",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional review boards, employment contracts, client agreements",
"violation_consequences": "Termination, breach of contract, professional sanctions",
"examples_from_case": ["Wasser's obligation to act as faithful agent to Cutting Edge", "Cutting Edge's obligation to follow through with agreed tasks"],
"source_text": "engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "While related to professional obligations, this specific duty to act as faithful agent/trustee is not explicitly covered in existing ontology"
},
{
"label": "Sustainability Consideration Obligation",
"definition": "Encouraged duty to adhere to principles of sustainable development and offer sustainable alternatives in professional practice",
"derived_from_principle": "Environmental Stewardship",
"duty_type": "ethical",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional encouragement, peer review, industry standards",
"violation_consequences": "Missed opportunities for environmental protection, reputational impact",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineers encouraged to adhere to sustainable development", "Offering green options for irrigation"],
"source_text": "Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Distinct from mandatory obligations - represents encouraged but not required professional duties related to sustainability"
},
{
"label": "Balanced Interests Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to balance the interests of all relevant and affected parties when making professional decisions",
"derived_from_principle": "Fairness and Justice",
"duty_type": "ethical",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional review, stakeholder feedback",
"violation_consequences": "Unfair outcomes, professional criticism, potential legal challenges",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A's obligation to balance state, towns, and farmhouse owner interests"],
"source_text": "Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties",
"confidence": 0.8,
"reasoning": "Represents a specific duty to consider multiple stakeholder interests not covered in existing obligation classes"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Faithful_Agency_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Faithful Agency Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"obligation_statement": "Act as a faithful agent to employer Cutting Edge",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code",
"enforcement_context": "Employment relationship and professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "During employment with Cutting Edge",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Tension between personal sustainability beliefs and assigned irrigation design task",
"source_text": "Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Sustainability_Encouragement",
"obligation_class": "Sustainability Consideration Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"obligation_statement": "Encouraged to adhere to principles of sustainable development",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section III.2.d",
"enforcement_context": "Professional encouragement, not mandatory",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout professional practice",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Wasser's desire to implement sustainable alternatives to traditional irrigation",
"source_text": "engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "CuttingEdge_Contract_Fulfillment",
"obligation_class": "Professional Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Cutting Edge Engineering",
"obligation_statement": "Follow through with the irrigation system design task they agreed to perform",
"derived_from": "Professional contract and standards",
"enforcement_context": "Client contract and professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "Duration of project contract",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Accepted work with irrigation system specification in mind",
"source_text": "Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Disclosure_Bird_Species",
"obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A (Case 07-6)",
"obligation_statement": "Include information about threat to bird species in written report",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section II.3.a",
"enforcement_context": "BER review and professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "During wetlands development report preparation",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Failed to include relevant environmental information in report",
"source_text": "Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Balanced_Interests",
"obligation_class": "Balanced Interests Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A (Case 15-12)",
"obligation_statement": "Balance interests of state, towns, and farmhouse owner in route planning",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code ethical principles",
"enforcement_context": "BER review",
"temporal_scope": "During road route specification project",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Determining road route affecting historic farmhouse",
"source_text": "Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Engineers_Reporting_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Reporting Obligation",
"obligated_party": "All Engineers",
"obligation_statement": "Be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section II.3.a",
"enforcement_context": "Professional review boards",
"temporal_scope": "When preparing professional reports",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Requirement to include all relevant and pertinent information",
"source_text": "engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
}
]
}
```
Constraints Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for constraints (boundaries, limitations, and restrictions).
Based on the literature:
- Constraints are INVIOLABLE BOUNDARIES that limit acceptable actions (Dennis et al. 2016)
- They differ from obligations by being restrictions rather than requirements
- Constraints can be legal, physical, resource-based, or procedural
- They define the space within which ethical decisions must be made
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW CONSTRAINT CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING CONSTRAINTS IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified constraints match these before creating new classes):
- Attribution Constraint: Requirements and limitations regarding the disclosure and citation of tools, methods, or sources used in professional work products
- Competence Constraint: Boundaries defined by agent capabilities and technical limitations (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- Confidentiality Constraint: Boundaries on information disclosure and privacy (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Constraint: An information content entity expressing limitations or restrictions on professional actions or decisions. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Defeasible Constraint: Constraints that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
- Ethical Constraint: Professional ethical boundaries beyond legal requirements (Benzmüller et al. 2020)
- Inviolable Constraint: Absolute constraints that cannot be overridden under any circumstances (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Jurisdictional Constraint: Boundaries of authority and geographical or organizational scope (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Legal Constraint: Constraints arising from legal requirements and statutes that establish inviolable boundaries (Kroll 2020, Stenseke 2024)
- Priority Constraint: Constraints establishing precedence when multiple requirements conflict (Scheutz & Malle 2014)
- Procedural Constraint: Requirements for following specific processes or protocols (Furbach et al. 2014)
- Regulatory Constraint: Constraints from regulatory bodies and professional standards organizations (Taddeo et al. 2024)
- Resource Constraint: Limitations on available time, budget, materials, or human resources (Ganascia 2007)
- Safety Constraint: Constraints ensuring safety requirements are met (Arkin 2008)
- Technology Substitution Constraint: Boundaries preventing technology from replacing professional judgment and human oversight in critical decision-making
Analyze this discussion section:
The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges.
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.”
BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion.
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters.
Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension?
Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform.
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic.
What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory.
But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Extract constraints following this JSON structure:
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific constraint class name",
"definition": "What this type of constraint limits or restricts",
"constraint_type": "legal|physical|resource|temporal|procedural",
"flexibility": "hard|soft|negotiable",
"violation_impact": "What happens if this constraint is violated",
"mitigation_possible": "Whether and how this constraint can be mitigated",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this constraint is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific constraint instance",
"constraint_class": "Name of the constraint class (new or existing)",
"constrained_entity": "What or who is constrained (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'Project')",
"constraint_statement": "The specific limitation (e.g., 'Cannot exceed budget of $X')",
"source": "Origin of constraint (e.g., 'Client budget', 'Environmental law')",
"enforcement_mechanism": "How this constraint is enforced",
"temporal_scope": "When this constraint applies",
"severity": "critical|major|minor",
"case_context": "How this constraint manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this constraint is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW constraint types that represent novel limitations or boundaries
2. Specific constraint instances showing how limitations apply in this case
3. The difference between constraints (boundaries) and obligations (duties)
4. Impact and severity of constraints on decision-making
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 18:00
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Client Specification Constraint",
"definition": "Limitations imposed by client-specified requirements that define the boundaries of acceptable project deliverables",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "negotiable",
"violation_impact": "Breach of contract, failure to deliver agreed-upon services, potential legal liability",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated through client education and offering alternative solutions that meet underlying needs",
"examples_from_case": ["landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system", "client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options"],
"source_text": "the project's landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Differs from existing procedural constraints by focusing on client-imposed project specifications rather than process requirements"
},
{
"label": "Professional Hierarchy Constraint",
"definition": "Boundaries on actions available to junior professionals based on their position within organizational hierarchy",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Career consequences, potential termination, professional relationship damage",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be navigated through proper communication channels and professional development",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task", "if Cutting Edge's position does not align with Wasser's view, this would create significant career issues"],
"source_text": "if Cutting Edge's position does not align with Wasser's view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from competence constraints as it addresses organizational position rather than technical capability"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "No_Zoning_Restrictions_Irrigation",
"constraint_class": "Legal Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Cutting Edge and Engineer Intern Wasser",
"constraint_statement": "No legal barriers prevent installation of traditional irrigation system",
"source": "Local zoning and building codes",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Absence of legal prohibition",
"temporal_scope": "Current project duration",
"severity": "minor",
"case_context": "Permits traditional irrigation system installation despite sustainability concerns",
"source_text": "the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Landscape_Architect_Specification",
"constraint_class": "Client Specification Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Cutting Edge Engineering",
"constraint_statement": "Must include provisions for irrigation system as specified by landscape architect",
"source": "Project specifications from landscape architect",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contractual agreement",
"temporal_scope": "Project duration",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Defines the deliverable that Cutting Edge agreed to provide",
"source_text": "the project's landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Intern_Status",
"constraint_class": "Professional Hierarchy Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"constraint_statement": "Limited authority to refuse assigned tasks without career consequences",
"source": "Employment relationship and intern status",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Employment terms and professional hierarchy",
"temporal_scope": "Duration of employment",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Limits Wasser's ability to refuse irrigation design task",
"source_text": "Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a 'traditional' irrigation system",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Sustainable_Development_Non_Mandatory",
"constraint_class": "Ethical Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "All engineers under NSPE Code",
"constraint_statement": "Sustainable development is encouraged but not required",
"source": "NSPE Code Section III.2.d",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics guidance (non-binding)",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing since 2007",
"severity": "minor",
"case_context": "Allows traditional irrigation system design without ethical violation",
"source_text": "Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Client_Choice_Boundary",
"constraint_class": "Client Specification Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Cutting Edge Engineering",
"constraint_statement": "Must respect client's final decision on project specifications",
"source": "Professional obligation to act as faithful agent",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics code and contractual obligations",
"temporal_scope": "Project duration",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "If client refuses sustainable options, must complete traditional system",
"source_text": "Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
}
]
}
```
Capabilities Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for capabilities (competencies and skills required for professional practice).
Based on the literature:
- Capabilities are COMPETENCIES that enable norm compliance (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- They represent the skills needed to fulfill professional obligations (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Capabilities include technical, ethical, communicative, and analytical competencies
- They constitute "norm competence" - the ability to act ethically (Kong et al. 2020)
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW CAPABILITY CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC CAPABILITY INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING CAPABILITIES IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified capabilities match these before creating new classes):
- AI Tool Evaluation Capability: The competency to assess, validate, and appropriately use AI-generated content in professional work
- Capability: A realizable entity that can be realized by specific types of actions or processes in professional contexts. This is the Ca component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Capability Type: Meta-class for specific capability types recognized by the ProEthica system
- Data Privacy Protection Capability: The competency to safeguard confidential client information when using digital tools and platforms
- Justification Capability: Capability to trace reasoning paths connecting decisions to authoritative sources (McLaren 2003, Anderson & Anderson 2018)
- Regulatory Compliance Capability: The competency to ensure designs and documents meet local regulations and safety standards
- Responsible Charge Capability: The competency to maintain active engagement and supervisory control from conception to completion of engineering work
- Technical Capability: A specialized technical skill or competency in a professional domain
- Technical Writing Capability: The competency to produce clear, accurate, and professional technical documentation and reports
- Technology Integration Capability: The competency to appropriately integrate new technologies while maintaining professional judgment
Analyze this discussion section:
The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges.
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.”
BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion.
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters.
Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension?
Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform.
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic.
What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory.
But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Extract capabilities following this JSON structure:
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific capability class name",
"definition": "What competency or skill this capability represents",
"capability_type": "technical|ethical|communicative|analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Which professional obligations this capability enables",
"skill_level": "basic|intermediate|advanced|expert",
"acquisition_method": "How this capability is typically acquired (education, training, experience)",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this capability is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific capability instance",
"capability_class": "Name of the capability class (new or existing)",
"possessed_by": "Who has this capability (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'All Licensed PEs')",
"capability_statement": "The specific competency (e.g., 'Design stormwater systems')",
"demonstrated_through": "How shown in the case (e.g., 'Years of experience', 'Professional license')",
"proficiency_level": "basic|intermediate|advanced|expert",
"enables_obligations": "Which obligations this capability enables",
"temporal_aspect": "When this capability is relevant",
"case_context": "How this capability manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this capability is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW capability types that represent novel competencies
2. Specific capability instances showing professional competencies in this case
3. The relationship between capabilities and norm competence
4. How capabilities enable fulfillment of professional obligations
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 18:01
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Sustainability Integration Capability",
"definition": "The competency to harmonize traditional engineering solutions with sustainable development principles while meeting client needs",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables adherence to sustainable development principles while fulfilling client obligations",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Education in sustainable development, experience with green technologies, professional development",
"examples_from_case": ["Offering green options for irrigation", "Rainwater harvesting and reuse solutions"],
"source_text": "By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from Technology Integration - specifically about balancing sustainability with traditional solutions"
},
{
"label": "Ethical Dissent Management Capability",
"definition": "The competency to navigate professional disagreements on ethical grounds while maintaining professional relationships and obligations",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables engineers to exercise right to dissent while fulfilling duties as faithful agents",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics training, professional experience, mentorship",
"examples_from_case": ["Wasser's refusal to perform irrigation design", "Finding alternative solutions instead of refusing tasks"],
"source_text": "an engineer's right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Not covered by existing capabilities - specific to managing ethical conflicts between personal convictions and professional duties"
},
{
"label": "Stakeholder Balancing Capability",
"definition": "The competency to identify, evaluate, and balance competing interests of multiple stakeholders in engineering projects",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of obligation to serve public good while considering all relevant parties",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, case study analysis, stakeholder management training",
"examples_from_case": ["Balancing state, towns, and farmhouse owner interests", "Considering client needs versus environmental impact"],
"source_text": "Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties",
"confidence": 0.8,
"reasoning": "Distinct capability for managing multiple competing interests not covered by existing classes"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Sustainability_Knowledge",
"capability_class": "Sustainability Integration Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"capability_statement": "Knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development principles",
"demonstrated_through": "Education and personal conviction about sustainability",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Adherence to NSPE Code Section III.2.d sustainable development principles",
"temporal_aspect": "Current and ongoing",
"case_context": "Wasser's ability to propose green irrigation alternatives",
"source_text": "given Wasser's education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Technical_Design",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"capability_statement": "Design irrigation systems including traditional and sustainable options",
"demonstrated_through": "Assignment to design task by employer",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Fulfill technical design requirements for client projects",
"temporal_aspect": "Current project assignment",
"case_context": "Assigned to design provisions for irrigation system",
"source_text": "Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a 'traditional' irrigation system",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "BER_Environmental_Assessment",
"capability_class": "AI Tool Evaluation Capability",
"possessed_by": "NSPE Board of Ethical Review",
"capability_statement": "Evaluate and interpret environmental sustainability considerations in ethical cases",
"demonstrated_through": "Evolution from Case 05-04 to Case 07-6",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Provide ethical guidance on sustainability matters",
"temporal_aspect": "Post-2007 Code revision",
"case_context": "Shift toward broader sustainability considerations",
"source_text": "reflect a shift in the BER's perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.75
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Stakeholder_Analysis",
"capability_class": "Stakeholder Balancing Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A (from Case 15-12)",
"capability_statement": "Balance interests of state, towns, and property owners in route planning",
"demonstrated_through": "Professional engineering work on state road project",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Serve public good while considering all affected parties",
"temporal_aspect": "During route planning project",
"case_context": "Determining road route with competing interests",
"source_text": "Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Wasser_Ethical_Dissent",
"capability_class": "Ethical Dissent Management Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Intern Wasser",
"capability_statement": "Exercise right to dissent on sustainability grounds while maintaining professional obligations",
"demonstrated_through": "Refusal to perform traditional irrigation design",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Navigate tension between personal ethics and employer duties",
"temporal_aspect": "Current ethical dilemma",
"case_context": "Refusing design task based on sustainability concerns",
"source_text": "Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation system design task",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "CuttingEdge_Regulatory_Compliance",
"capability_class": "Regulatory Compliance Capability",
"possessed_by": "Cutting Edge Engineering",
"capability_statement": "Ensure designs meet local zoning and building code requirements",
"demonstrated_through": "Professional engineering practice",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Deliver legally compliant engineering solutions",
"temporal_aspect": "Ongoing professional practice",
"case_context": "Confirming no restrictions on irrigation systems",
"source_text": "the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```