Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts 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: Acting as a faithful agent or trustee for a client or employer is an obligation for any engineer and is one of the fundamental canons in NSPE’s code of ethics. Engineer D’s efforts to make as-built drawings available for reference appears to be acting in the employer’s best interest. Providing more information about existing conditions should help produce a better design. When D provides as-built drawings after bid openings, is employer information being shared without consent? In addition, if information is shared selectively with contractors before bids are opened; will D’s actions influence the award of a contract? BER Case 82-2 is a useful starting point in this discussion. In that case, an engineer offers a service providing inspection of residences to prospective homeowners. For the situation in question, the engineer produced a report for their client and provided a copy to the real estate firm handling the home sale. The client complained the engineer acted unethically by providing a copy to the real estate firm and caused harm by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. Case discussion notes there was no transmission of the client’s confidential information by the engineer (presumably the real estate firm could have had the home inspected and gained the same knowledge). The BER states “we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties …” The board exonerated the engineer of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, but determined it was incorrect to not recognize the confidentiality of a client relationship. The engineer acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate agent. BER Case 15-7 involves the ubiquitous Engineer A working for Firm X. A’s firm is retained by a municipality to design a water treatment facility. A believes the project can benefit from a discussion of constructability issues, and is tempted to begin a discussion with local Contractor B. A is concerned that potential discussions with B will provide an unfair advantage. The board advised that “rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically (sic) advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome. Such a process would avoid any appearance of favoritism toward one particular contractor, serve the client’s interests, and gain the benefit of broader input to improve the design and construction process.” The above summary of case history focused on engineers providing or being in position to have access to information not generally available to others. BER Case 16-3 involves Engineer A who receives a submittal by a highly qualified engineering firm (Firm B) a few hours after a well-publicized deadline. In 16-3, “the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B’s submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated. Such a situation would not reflect well on that process, the city, or the engineering profession.” The conclusion was that A should return the submittal to firm B, unopened and explain that the bid/submittal was received late. Returning to the case at hand, Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D’s desire is to make information available to improve designs. Even so, informally sharing as-built information is troubling. Working through informal mechanisms on public projects can give the appearance of impropriety or favoritism. Engineer D can advise that as-built drawings are available, but D should direct subcontractors to request them as part of the standard project process. D should not share documents on their own initiative or without formal permission. Because as-builts are useful and can help improve designs, Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward. It would be unethical for D to share as-builts with selected contractors pre-bid. 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" } ] }