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: Competition for engineering work by private consulting firms can be quite intense. Selection of a winning proposal may be made on razor-thin margins. Competitive edges are sought to win work over other firms. The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration. In this case, Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B. Further, Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A, and Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B’s decision-making process. NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods. Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C’s statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances. As such, Engineer C’s conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B’s situation. In BER Case 93-3 , Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States. After several years, the franchiser decided to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provided Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract with Engineer A’s firm. In order to maintain continuity and before the contract expired, the franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns. Prior to the review, franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B’s relationship with franchiser. Nevertheless, Engineer B notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review. The BER in this case determined that Engineer B’s act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code stating that Engineer B had an obligation as “faithful agent and trustee” to not to tell Engineer A of his relationship with the client. Case 93-3 differs from the current case as Engineer C in the present case is not under contract with Client A. In BER Case 01-1 , the BER reviewed a situation where Engineer A left Firm X to start a new Firm Y. Engineer A also contacted another engineer from Firm X, Engineer C, to convince them to join Firm Y. Thereafter, Engineer A contacted clients of Firm X to convince them to contract with the new firm since the old firm would be “hard-pressed” to continue to perform services adequately without Engineers A and C. The BER found that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make such representations as these methods were questionable and improper. Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. For this reason, in the present case, using the situation to Engineer C’s advantage could be perceived the same way. In the present case, Engineer C has been put in a difficult position by Client A. Engineer C has been asked to evaluate another engineer’s work, which in turn could give Engineer C a significant advantage in securing future work. Two sections of the Code of Ethics provide guidance for Engineer C’s response: 1) Engineers shall not attempt to obtain advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods, and 2) Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional practice of other engineers. Not being fully aware of the circumstances of Engineer B’s decisions could result in Engineer C giving an opinion that is not accurate, even though C feels that the opinion is truthful. Engineer C should have refrained from any criticism. While Engineer C could answer Client A’s questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues. Further, the Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the ame client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated. In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A’s conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated. 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" } ] }