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: Old BER cases are a rich trove of resources for engineers like R to turn to for guidance about environmental concerns and voicing these concerns publicly. In BER Case 79-2 , engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill. After several presentations to the town council A and B were directed to prepare a new design for the existing site at higher final contours - the new design would provide for a hill 100 feet higher than originally proposed. Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound. One of the questions the BER was asked to resolve in 1979 was if it was ethical for C to publicly challenge the design approach adopted by A and B. The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed “There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.” They also stated that “it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.” BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant. In this situation, engineers A and B find themselves at odds with a metropolitan water commission (MWC) that is in favor of changing the water supply source to one which A and B believe cannot be used safely before additional study and plant capital investment. In Case 20-4 , the MWC overruled the engineering judgment of A and B. The BER concluded that “The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A’s and Engineer B’s duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.” These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing. As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4 , engineer R’s formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report. If R’s judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency. Questions 2 and 3 are closely related and raise the question if engineer H misrepresented H’s personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board? Was H practicing engineering? Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked. In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction. Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering. Question 4 deals with objectivity and truthfulness - issues directly addressed by fundamental Canon 1.3. Should H have addressed R’s concerns about leaks from underground tanks? BER Case 95-5 is applicable here. The facts of this case are quite detailed and specific, but a key fact, and one that the BER focused on, was an engineer’s failure to include relevant information in a report. The board concluded that selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers “shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.” Engineer H’s redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations. Engineer R’s testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R’s testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H’s testimony was incomplete and misleading. 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" } ] }