Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion Section)

DUAL PRINCIPLE EXTRACTION - Ethical Principles Analysis THEORETICAL CONTEXT (Chapter 2.2.2): - Principles are ABSTRACT ethical foundations requiring extensional definition through cases - They function like constitutional principles - open-textured and requiring interpretation - Principles mediate moral ideals into concrete reality through context-specific application - They cannot be applied deductively but require balancing and interpretation EXISTING PRINCIPLE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY: - Competence Principle: Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration. - Confidentiality Principle: Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements. - Domain-Specific Principle: Examples: Environmental Stewardship (engineering), Patient Autonomy (medicine), Academic Freedom (education). These address domain-specific ethical ch - Environmental Stewardship Principle: Bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities. - Ethical Principle: Legacy synonym for Principle. Use :Principle for new concepts. - Fundamental Ethical Principle: Examples: Public Welfare Paramount, Respect for Persons, Justice, Beneficence. These require extensive interpretation and balancing in specific contex - Integrity Principle: Central to professional identity formation and trust maintenance in professional relationships. - Principle: An information content entity representing ethical values and guidelines for conduct. This is the P component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,R - Principle Argument: An argument based on fundamental ethical principles or values. - Principle Refinement: Capability to evolve principles as inconsistencies are resolved and new cases are added (GenEth system, Anderson & Anderson 2018) - Professional Virtue Principle: Examples: Integrity, Competence, Honesty, Professional Courage, Accountability. These shape professional character and decision-making. - Public Welfare Principle: Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk. - Relational Principle: Examples: Confidentiality, Loyalty, Fairness, Transparency, Respect for Autonomy. These govern interpersonal professional dynamics. - Transparency Principle: Essential for maintaining trust and enabling stakeholder participation in professional decisions. === TASK === From the following case text (discussion section), extract information at TWO levels: LEVEL 1 - NEW PRINCIPLE CLASSES: Identify ethical principles that appear to be NEW types not covered by existing classes above. Look for: - Fundamental ethical values being invoked - Abstract moral ideals guiding decisions - Constitutional-like principles requiring interpretation - Values that transcend specific rules or obligations For each NEW principle class, provide: - label: Clear principle name (e.g., "Environmental Stewardship", "Professional Autonomy") - definition: What moral ideal this principle represents - abstract_nature: The abstract ethical foundation (justice, welfare, autonomy, etc.) - extensional_examples: Concrete cases/situations where this principle applies - value_basis: Core moral value underlying the principle - application_context: Professional domains or situations where relevant - operationalization: How this abstract principle becomes concrete in practice - balancing_requirements: What other principles it typically must be balanced against - examples_from_case: How this principle appears in the case text LEVEL 2 - PRINCIPLE INDIVIDUALS: Identify specific instances where principles are invoked or applied. For each instance: - identifier: Unique identifier for this principle instance (e.g., "PublicSafety_Case8_Discussion") - principle_class: Which principle class it instantiates (use existing classes when possible) - concrete_expression: EXACT text showing how the principle is expressed - invoked_by: Who invokes or appeals to this principle - applied_to: What decision/situation/dilemma it applies to - interpretation: How the principle is interpreted in this specific context - balancing_with: Other principles that must be balanced against it - tension_resolution: How conflicts between principles are resolved - case_relevance: Why this principle matters in this specific case IMPORTANT: - Focus on ABSTRACT ethical foundations, not specific rules or procedures - Principles are broader than obligations - they generate obligations in context - Use EXACT quotes from case text where principles are expressed - Distinguish between the abstract principle CLASS and its concrete APPLICATION CASE TEXT: Peer review issues are arising with increasing frequency. In many cases, the possibility that the client will obtain a peer review is specified in design-build bid or contract documents to the effect that any party who bids or contracts with the client has, by participating, consented to the peer review. Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions. Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere. However, that is not always the case and it is not the case here. It is helpful to consider how the BER has addressed peer review issues in the past. For example, in BER Case 18-10 , Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project. The review’s scope was limited to clarifications and refinements, and there was no confidentiality agreement. (Of course, as a public project, there would not be.) About a year later, Engineer A’s firm is invited to be part of a joint venture responding to a design-build RFP for the project. In Case 18-10 , the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A’s firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project. In BER Case 96-8 , Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program. When selected as a reviewer for the program, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review. Engineer A was assigned to review the design work of Engineer B’s firm on several projects. In the course of the review, Engineer A determined that Engineer B’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk. The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution. That could range from a joint determination that there no violation of code requirements, that the violations were de minimis and did not threaten public health, safety, and welfare, or that there were violations and that the violations did threaten public, health, safety, and welfare but that Engineer B refused to make adjustments. And, if Engineers A and B were unable to successfully resolve Engineer A’s concerns, Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities. In the present case, Professional Obligation III.7.a. is very clear: “Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.” Accordingly, Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A’s work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A. Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review. [93-3 discussed a situation in which the Owner refused to advise the engineer of the planned peer review.] While Professional Obligation III.7.a. does not require the consent of the engineer whose work is being reviewed, it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A’s cooperation.) If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A. Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate. Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients, and must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public. Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B’s peer review. The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent. 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" } ] }