Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 4: Sustainable Development and Resilient Infrastructure

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 15
Actions: 4
Events: 3
Causal Chains: 4
Allen Relations: 3
Timeline: 7
Timeline Overview
Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.
Timeline Elements: 7
Actions on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)
Events on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)
Temporal Markers
  • before City Council decision 1 elements
  • initial design phase 1 elements
  • after initial design phase 1 elements
  • after City Council approval 1 elements
  • During stakeholder engagement phase 1 elements
  • During design analysis phase 1 elements
  • Following city council presentation 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (4)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer K identified and developed two distinct flood control approaches during initial design phase. Both traditional and sustainable approaches were fully researched and designed.

Temporal Marker: initial design phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide comprehensive design options

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Competence
  • Due diligence
  • Public welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Thoroughness
  • Professional responsibility
Required Capabilities:
Flood control engineering Design analysis
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Wanted to provide comprehensive design options to meet diverse community needs and demonstrate thorough engineering analysis

Ethical Tension: Engineering thoroughness vs cost/time efficiency, inclusive design vs traditional approaches

Learning Significance: Demonstrates importance of considering multiple solutions and social impacts in engineering design

Stakes: Quality of flood protection, environmental impact, community equity, project timeline and budget

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Focus only on traditional cost-effective approach
  • Recommend sustainable approach only
  • Seek additional funding for hybrid solution

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Two-Approach_Design_Development",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Focus only on traditional cost-effective approach",
    "Recommend sustainable approach only",
    "Seek additional funding for hybrid solution"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Wanted to provide comprehensive design options to meet diverse community needs and demonstrate thorough engineering analysis",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Faster delivery but potential community backlash",
    "Possible rejection by cost-conscious leadership",
    "Project delays but potentially better outcomes"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates importance of considering multiple solutions and social impacts in engineering design",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Engineering thoroughness vs cost/time efficiency, inclusive design vs traditional approaches",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Quality of flood protection, environmental impact, community equity, project timeline and budget",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer K identified and developed two distinct flood control approaches during initial design phase. Both traditional and sustainable approaches were fully researched and designed.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Increased complexity",
    "Decision difficulty"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Competence",
    "Due diligence",
    "Public welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Thoroughness",
    "Professional responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer K (City-hired Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Efficiency vs Comprehensiveness",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Chose comprehensive approach development"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide comprehensive design options",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Flood control engineering",
    "Design analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "initial design phase",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Two-Approach Design Development"
}

Description: Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings to gather community input and reveal preferences. This revealed community divisions between the two approaches.

Temporal Marker: after initial design phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Gather community input on design options

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Public participation
  • Transparency
  • Public welfare
Guided By Principles:
  • Democratic participation
  • Community engagement
Required Capabilities:
Stakeholder engagement Communication skills
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Believed community input was essential for successful flood control implementation and wanted to understand real-world impacts

Ethical Tension: Democratic participation vs engineering expertise, community preferences vs technical optimization

Learning Significance: Shows importance of stakeholder engagement but also reveals how it can complicate decision-making

Stakes: Community buy-in, project acceptance, discovery of social justice issues, potential project delays

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Conduct limited technical consultation only
  • Focus engagement on directly affected areas only
  • Include independent facilitator for community meetings

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Stakeholder_Engagement_Conduct",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct limited technical consultation only",
    "Focus engagement on directly affected areas only",
    "Include independent facilitator for community meetings"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Believed community input was essential for successful flood control implementation and wanted to understand real-world impacts",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Miss critical community insights and potential resistance",
    "Overlook broader community impacts",
    "More balanced input but increased time/cost"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows importance of stakeholder engagement but also reveals how it can complicate decision-making",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Democratic participation vs engineering expertise, community preferences vs technical optimization",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Community buy-in, project acceptance, discovery of social justice issues, potential project delays",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings to gather community input and reveal preferences. This revealed community divisions between the two approaches.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Conflicting preferences",
    "Political complexity"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Public participation",
    "Transparency",
    "Public welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Democratic participation",
    "Community engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer K (City-hired Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Project efficiency vs Community engagement",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized meaningful community engagement"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Gather community input on design options",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Stakeholder engagement",
    "Communication skills"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "after initial design phase",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Stakeholder Engagement Conduct"
}

Description: Engineer K decided to present both design options with complete information about risks and benefits to City Council. This included disclosure of disproportionate impact issues.

Temporal Marker: before City Council decision

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enable informed decision-making by City Council

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Transparency
  • Honesty
  • Public welfare
  • Informed consent
Guided By Principles:
  • Full disclosure
  • Professional integrity
Required Capabilities:
Technical presentation Risk communication
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Felt professional obligation to provide complete, honest information to enable informed decision-making by elected officials

Ethical Tension: Transparency vs client preferences, professional honesty vs organizational loyalty

Learning Significance: Key teaching moment about engineer's duty to provide complete information even when inconvenient

Stakes: Public trust, professional integrity, project approval, community welfare, engineer's relationship with client

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Present only the preferred traditional approach
  • Emphasize traditional approach while briefly mentioning alternatives
  • Recommend delaying decision pending further impact study

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Comprehensive_Risk_Presentation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Present only the preferred traditional approach",
    "Emphasize traditional approach while briefly mentioning alternatives",
    "Recommend delaying decision pending further impact study"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Felt professional obligation to provide complete, honest information to enable informed decision-making by elected officials",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Faster approval but potential future liability and ethical violations",
    "Compromise solution but incomplete transparency",
    "Better informed decision but project delays and client frustration"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Key teaching moment about engineer\u0027s duty to provide complete information even when inconvenient",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Transparency vs client preferences, professional honesty vs organizational loyalty",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public trust, professional integrity, project approval, community welfare, engineer\u0027s relationship with client",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer K decided to present both design options with complete information about risks and benefits to City Council. This included disclosure of disproportionate impact issues.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Political controversy",
    "Decision delays"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Transparency",
    "Honesty",
    "Public welfare",
    "Informed consent"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Full disclosure",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer K (City-hired Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Client preferences vs Professional transparency",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Professional integrity took precedence"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enable informed decision-making by City Council",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical presentation",
    "Risk communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "before City Council decision",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Comprehensive Risk Presentation"
}

Description: Engineer K decided to proceed with implementation of the traditional approach after City Council approval. This occurred despite knowing about unaddressed disproportionate impacts on underserved communities.

Temporal Marker: after City Council approval

Mental State: conflicted

Intended Outcome: Fulfill contractual obligations to City

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Client loyalty
  • Contractual duties
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional service
  • Democratic accountability
Required Capabilities:
Project management Technical implementation
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Felt bound by client's decision and professional obligation to complete contracted work despite personal reservations

Ethical Tension: Professional duty to client vs social responsibility, contractual obligations vs ethical concerns about harm

Learning Significance: Critical lesson about limits of 'just following orders' and when engineers must consider refusing to participate

Stakes: Underserved communities face disproportionate impacts, engineer's professional reputation, precedent for future similar decisions

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Refuse to implement and resign from project
  • Propose implementation modifications to reduce impacts
  • Document concerns formally while proceeding

Narrative Role: resolution

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Implementation_Proceeding_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Refuse to implement and resign from project",
    "Propose implementation modifications to reduce impacts",
    "Document concerns formally while proceeding"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Felt bound by client\u0027s decision and professional obligation to complete contracted work despite personal reservations",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential legal/financial consequences but clear ethical stance",
    "Possible compromise solution but client resistance",
    "Create paper trail for accountability but still enable harmful outcomes"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Critical lesson about limits of \u0027just following orders\u0027 and when engineers must consider refusing to participate",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional duty to client vs social responsibility, contractual obligations vs ethical concerns about harm",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Underserved communities face disproportionate impacts, engineer\u0027s professional reputation, precedent for future similar decisions",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer K decided to proceed with implementation of the traditional approach after City Council approval. This occurred despite knowing about unaddressed disproportionate impacts on underserved communities.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Perpetuation of environmental injustice",
    "Personal ethical conflict"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Client loyalty",
    "Contractual duties"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional service",
    "Democratic accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer K (City-hired Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional loyalty vs Environmental justice",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Deferred to democratic process and client authority"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conflicted",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Fulfill contractual obligations to City",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Project management",
    "Technical implementation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "after City Council approval",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Environmental justice",
    "Public welfare for all communities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Implementation Proceeding Decision"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Stakeholder meetings uncover specific community preferences and concerns regarding flood control approaches. Local residents express clear views on design priorities and implementation impacts.

Temporal Marker: During stakeholder engagement phase

Activates Constraints:
  • Community_Input_Consideration
  • Stakeholder_Engagement_Required
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Validation for community members feeling heard; increased responsibility burden for Engineer K; anticipation among stakeholders about design direction

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • community: Expectations raised about input being incorporated into final design
  • engineer_k: Additional data to consider and responsibility to balance competing interests
  • city_leadership: Political pressure to respond to constituent preferences

Learning Moment: Shows importance of stakeholder engagement in revealing community values and preferences that should inform engineering decisions

Ethical Implications: Highlights tension between technical expertise and democratic participation; raises questions about engineer's role in balancing expert knowledge with community values

Discussion Prompts:
  • How should engineers balance technical requirements with community preferences?
  • What obligations arise when engineers actively seek stakeholder input?
  • When might community preferences conflict with engineering best practices?
Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Event_Community_Preferences_Revealed",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers balance technical requirements with community preferences?",
    "What obligations arise when engineers actively seek stakeholder input?",
    "When might community preferences conflict with engineering best practices?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Validation for community members feeling heard; increased responsibility burden for Engineer K; anticipation among stakeholders about design direction",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights tension between technical expertise and democratic participation; raises questions about engineer\u0027s role in balancing expert knowledge with community values",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows importance of stakeholder engagement in revealing community values and preferences that should inform engineering decisions",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_leadership": "Political pressure to respond to constituent preferences",
    "community": "Expectations raised about input being incorporated into final design",
    "engineer_k": "Additional data to consider and responsibility to balance competing interests"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Community_Input_Consideration",
    "Stakeholder_Engagement_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Stakeholder_Engagement_Conduct",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Design process now informed by community input; stakeholder preferences documented",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Incorporate_Community_Feedback",
    "Document_Stakeholder_Concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Stakeholder meetings uncover specific community preferences and concerns regarding flood control approaches. Local residents express clear views on design priorities and implementation impacts.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During stakeholder engagement phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Community Preferences Revealed"
}

Description: Technical analysis reveals that the traditional flood control approach will create disproportionate negative impacts on certain community segments. This discovery fundamentally changes the ethical landscape of the design decision.

Temporal Marker: During design analysis phase

Activates Constraints:
  • Environmental_Justice_Constraint
  • Equity_Consideration_Required
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Moral distress for Engineer K recognizing harm potential; anxiety among affected communities; concern for city leaders about project complications

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • affected_communities: Potential for significant harm if traditional approach proceeds
  • engineer_k: Professional obligation to address equity issues; potential conflict with employer preferences
  • city_leadership: Political pressure to address equity while managing costs and timelines
  • broader_community: Questions about fairness and justice in public infrastructure decisions

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how technical analysis can reveal ethical issues; shows intersection of engineering competence with social justice concerns

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between technical efficiency and social equity; highlights engineer's role in identifying and addressing environmental justice issues

Discussion Prompts:
  • What are an engineer's obligations when discovering disproportionate impacts?
  • How should equity considerations be weighed against cost and efficiency?
  • What role should engineers play in advocating for vulnerable populations?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Event_Disproportionate_Impact_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are an engineer\u0027s obligations when discovering disproportionate impacts?",
    "How should equity considerations be weighed against cost and efficiency?",
    "What role should engineers play in advocating for vulnerable populations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Moral distress for Engineer K recognizing harm potential; anxiety among affected communities; concern for city leaders about project complications",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between technical efficiency and social equity; highlights engineer\u0027s role in identifying and addressing environmental justice issues",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how technical analysis can reveal ethical issues; shows intersection of engineering competence with social justice concerns",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "affected_communities": "Potential for significant harm if traditional approach proceeds",
    "broader_community": "Questions about fairness and justice in public infrastructure decisions",
    "city_leadership": "Political pressure to address equity while managing costs and timelines",
    "engineer_k": "Professional obligation to address equity issues; potential conflict with employer preferences"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Environmental_Justice_Constraint",
    "Equity_Consideration_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Two-Approach_Design_Development",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project complexity increased; ethical obligations heightened; alternative solutions required consideration",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Address_Disproportionate_Impact",
    "Explore_Alternative_Approaches",
    "Inform_Decision_Makers"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Technical analysis reveals that the traditional flood control approach will create disproportionate negative impacts on certain community segments. This discovery fundamentally changes the ethical landscape of the design decision.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During design analysis phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Disproportionate Impact Discovery"
}

Description: Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address the disproportionate impact issue and approves the traditional approach. This decision creates a direct conflict between organizational directive and ethical obligations.

Temporal Marker: Following city council presentation

Activates Constraints:
  • Professional_Autonomy_vs_Authority_Conflict
  • Whistleblowing_Consideration
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Moral distress and potential anger for Engineer K; vindication for cost-focused stakeholders; fear and betrayal among affected communities; tension for city council members

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_k: Must decide whether to continue participation in ethically problematic project
  • affected_communities: Formal abandonment by city government despite identified harms
  • city_leadership: Political responsibility for choosing efficiency over equity
  • engineering_profession: Test case for professional autonomy vs. organizational authority

Learning Moment: Illustrates conflict between professional ethics and organizational authority; demonstrates limits of information-based ethical action

Ethical Implications: Creates direct test of professional autonomy; highlights limits of technical expertise in political decision-making; raises questions about engineer complicity in harmful decisions

Discussion Prompts:
  • What options does Engineer K have after this decision?
  • When do professional obligations override employer directives?
  • How should engineers respond when organizations reject ethical recommendations?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Event_City_Leadership_Rejection",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What options does Engineer K have after this decision?",
    "When do professional obligations override employer directives?",
    "How should engineers respond when organizations reject ethical recommendations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Moral distress and potential anger for Engineer K; vindication for cost-focused stakeholders; fear and betrayal among affected communities; tension for city council members",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Creates direct test of professional autonomy; highlights limits of technical expertise in political decision-making; raises questions about engineer complicity in harmful decisions",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates conflict between professional ethics and organizational authority; demonstrates limits of information-based ethical action",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "affected_communities": "Formal abandonment by city government despite identified harms",
    "city_leadership": "Political responsibility for choosing efficiency over equity",
    "engineer_k": "Must decide whether to continue participation in ethically problematic project",
    "engineering_profession": "Test case for professional autonomy vs. organizational authority"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Autonomy_vs_Authority_Conflict",
    "Whistleblowing_Consideration"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#Action_Comprehensive_Risk_Presentation",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Direct conflict between professional ethics and employer directives; Engineer K must choose response to organizational rejection of ethical concerns",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Evaluate_Continued_Participation",
    "Consider_Formal_Objection",
    "Protect_Professional_Integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address the disproportionate impact issue and approves the traditional approach. This decision creates a direct conflict between organizational directive and ethical obligations.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following city council presentation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "City Leadership Rejection"
}
Causal Chains (4)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer K decided to present both design options with complete information about risks and benefits. Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Complete presentation of risks and alternatives by Engineer K
  • City leadership awareness of disproportionate impacts
  • City leadership decision-making authority
  • City leadership priorities conflicting with equity concerns
Sufficient Factors:
  • Comprehensive presentation of uncomfortable truths to city leadership with conflicting priorities
Counterfactual Test: Without full disclosure of risks and alternatives, city leadership might not have been forced to explicitly reject addressing disproportionate impacts
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer K and City Leadership
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Comprehensive Risk Presentation
    Engineer K presents complete information about risks and benefits of both approaches
  2. City Leadership Review
    City leadership considers presented options and their implications
  3. City Leadership Rejection
    Despite comprehensive information, city leadership decides not to address disproportionate impacts
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#CausalChain_bb06397a",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer K decided to present both design options with complete information about risks and benefits. Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer K presents complete information about risks and benefits of both approaches",
      "proeth:element": "Comprehensive Risk Presentation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City leadership considers presented options and their implications",
      "proeth:element": "City Leadership Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Despite comprehensive information, city leadership decides not to address disproportionate impacts",
      "proeth:element": "City Leadership Rejection",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Comprehensive Risk Presentation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without full disclosure of risks and alternatives, city leadership might not have been forced to explicitly reject addressing disproportionate impacts",
  "proeth:effect": "City Leadership Rejection",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Complete presentation of risks and alternatives by Engineer K",
    "City leadership awareness of disproportionate impacts",
    "City leadership decision-making authority",
    "City leadership priorities conflicting with equity concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer K and City Leadership",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Comprehensive presentation of uncomfortable truths to city leadership with conflicting priorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings to gather community input and reveal preferences. This revealed specific community preferences and concerns regarding flood control approaches

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Active stakeholder engagement by Engineer K
  • Community willingness to participate in meetings
  • Structured process to gather input
Sufficient Factors:
  • Engineer K's decision to conduct stakeholder meetings with community participation
Counterfactual Test: Without stakeholder meetings, community preferences would have remained unknown during design process
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer K
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Stakeholder Engagement Conduct
    Engineer K initiates stakeholder meetings to gather community input
  2. Community Preferences Revealed
    Meetings uncover specific community preferences and concerns about flood control approaches
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#CausalChain_da084f0f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings to gather community input and reveal preferences. This revealed specific community preferences and concerns regarding flood control approaches",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer K initiates stakeholder meetings to gather community input",
      "proeth:element": "Stakeholder Engagement Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Meetings uncover specific community preferences and concerns about flood control approaches",
      "proeth:element": "Community Preferences Revealed",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Stakeholder Engagement Conduct",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without stakeholder meetings, community preferences would have remained unknown during design process",
  "proeth:effect": "Community Preferences Revealed",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Active stakeholder engagement by Engineer K",
    "Community willingness to participate in meetings",
    "Structured process to gather input"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer K",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer K\u0027s decision to conduct stakeholder meetings with community participation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer K identified and developed two distinct flood control approaches during initial design phase. Technical analysis reveals that the traditional flood control approach will create disproportionate impact

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Development of traditional approach as one option
  • Technical analysis comparing approaches
  • Recognition of disproportionate impacts during analysis
Sufficient Factors:
  • Engineer K's thorough analysis of traditional approach combined with impact assessment methodology
Counterfactual Test: Without developing and analyzing the traditional approach, the disproportionate impacts would not have been discovered
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer K
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Two-Approach Design Development
    Engineer K develops traditional and alternative flood control approaches
  2. Technical Analysis Conduct
    Comprehensive analysis performed on both approaches
  3. Disproportionate Impact Discovery
    Analysis reveals traditional approach creates disproportionate impacts
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#CausalChain_94b258db",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer K identified and developed two distinct flood control approaches during initial design phase. Technical analysis reveals that the traditional flood control approach will create disproportionate impact",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer K develops traditional and alternative flood control approaches",
      "proeth:element": "Two-Approach Design Development",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Comprehensive analysis performed on both approaches",
      "proeth:element": "Technical Analysis Conduct",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Analysis reveals traditional approach creates disproportionate impacts",
      "proeth:element": "Disproportionate Impact Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Two-Approach Design Development",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without developing and analyzing the traditional approach, the disproportionate impacts would not have been discovered",
  "proeth:effect": "Disproportionate Impact Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Development of traditional approach as one option",
    "Technical analysis comparing approaches",
    "Recognition of disproportionate impacts during analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer K",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer K\u0027s thorough analysis of traditional approach combined with impact assessment methodology"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address. Engineer K decided to proceed with implementation of the traditional approach after City Council approval

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • City Council approval of traditional approach
  • Engineer K's decision to proceed despite known disproportionate impacts
  • Professional obligation to follow client decisions
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of official approval and professional compliance with client authority
Counterfactual Test: Without city leadership rejection and approval of problematic approach, Engineer K would not have faced the ethical dilemma of proceeding
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer K and City Leadership
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. City Leadership Rejection
    City leadership decides not to address disproportionate impacts
  2. City Council Approval Process
    City Council formally approves traditional approach
  3. Engineer K Compliance Decision
    Engineer K weighs professional obligations and ethical concerns
  4. Implementation Proceeding Decision
    Engineer K decides to proceed with implementation of traditional approach
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/4#CausalChain_1f2a1939",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Despite comprehensive presentation of risks and alternatives, city leadership decides not to address. Engineer K decided to proceed with implementation of the traditional approach after City Council approval",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City leadership decides not to address disproportionate impacts",
      "proeth:element": "City Leadership Rejection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Council formally approves traditional approach",
      "proeth:element": "City Council Approval Process",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer K weighs professional obligations and ethical concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer K Compliance Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer K decides to proceed with implementation of traditional approach",
      "proeth:element": "Implementation Proceeding Decision",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "City Leadership Rejection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without city leadership rejection and approval of problematic approach, Engineer K would not have faced the ethical dilemma of proceeding",
  "proeth:effect": "Implementation Proceeding Decision",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "City Council approval of traditional approach",
    "Engineer K\u0027s decision to proceed despite known disproportionate impacts",
    "Professional obligation to follow client decisions"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer K and City Leadership",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of official approval and professional compliance with client authority"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (3)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer K hiring before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		initial design phase time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control sys...
initial design phase before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		stakeholder meetings time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		During the initial design phase, Engineer K identifies two potential approaches... As part of the pr...
stakeholder meetings during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		project development process time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meeting...
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue