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: The primary issues of this case are the competency and professional actions of Engineer B, Engineer Intern C’s apparent complicity in the matter, the “compassion” of Engineer A and any subsequent actions by Engineer A, and the ethical obligations of Engineer R. The critical assessment of Engineer B’s competency and professional actions is overriding and will lead to other required determinations. The evaluation of this issue can be determined by separate facts. The facts are that Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal. While suffering a stroke by itself was not an ethical problem, the fact that Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem. The BER has not previously examined competence as it relates to mental health; however, the facts in this case make the determination of [non]competence straightforward. Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control. This also shows Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a). The Board further notes that Engineer B’s actions were in violation of NSPE’s Position Statement No. 10-1778: Responsible Charge which states: “The professional engineer in Responsible Charge is actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion. Engineering decisions must be personally made by the professional engineer or by others over which the professional engineer provides supervisory direction and control authority. Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.” The actions of Engineer Intern C should be evaluated as well. Granted, Engineer Intern C is not yet a licensed professional engineer but an intern, and thus is working within the safety net of Engineer B’s guidance and direct supervision. While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility. The facts suggest Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B’s impaired condition. Further, it appears Engineer Intern C cooperated with Engineer B in their arrangement to continue to deliver engineering design services as soon as it was realized Engineer B was unable to provide guidance, direct supervision or review. A similar ethical violation is discussed in BER Case 15-2 , in which an engineering report was revised after the report was signed and sealed inappropriately. The BER determined that the Engineer had an obligation to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate. In summary, Engineer Intern C is ethically culpable through violation of Section II.1.e, Section II.1.f, and Section III.8.a of the Code of Ethics. What about Engineer A’s actions? Reference is made to Section I.1 of the Code, engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and, more specifically, Section II.1.e, engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm and Section II.1.f, engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required. The BER has almost always taken the position that whenever any violation of the Code or issues of public health, safety, and welfare are uncovered, the proper authorities should be notified. In BER Case 17-7 , the BER determined that an Engineer had an obligation to further report the situation to the appropriate the local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards were consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. This was a case where a proposed change to an ordinance was contrary to established engineering standards. Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B’s violations. Code Section III.7, engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action, unambiguously requires that such violations be reported to the appropriate professional body, in this case the State Board. This determination is also strengthened by Section III.8.a, engineers shall conform with state licensure law. That being said, the friendship between Engineer A and Engineer B warrants consideration. Hypothetically, what might an engineer do that would have been both ethical and would also have respected the friendship? Section III.7 of the Code says engineers “shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.” By this view and with Engineer B’s knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board. Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty. Further, under such a scenario, the Board might exercise discretion relative to formal sanction (or not) of Engineer B. Other approaches are also possible. But any of them must begin with the conviction that the ethics code does not permit engineers to turn a blind eye to the unethical practice of engineering. Finally, what are Engineer R’s ethical obligations? The facts reveal it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B’s design and construction documents. Further, in the aftermath of Engineer R’s discovery, it is reasonable to think Engineer R was informed of Engineer B’s impairment due to a stroke, and also the series of actions by Engineer B and Engineer Intern C that followed. Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R’s concurrence. Otherwise, Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f). 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" } ] }