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 Board of Ethical Review (BER) begin this discussion by reviewing the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code). Engineer K is hired by the City with a specific task in mind—design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area; the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee. We will explore the distinction between an agent and trustee with a somewhat simplified description: If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City’s agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do. If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee — the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves. • If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City’s agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do. • If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee — the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves. During the design phase, the City trusts Engineer K to develop a design. What should be included in the design is where the analysis of the Code is required. Certainly, the system should be functional; any non-functional design brings into play the obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b. When reporting about their design, Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony. Per Code section II.3.a, they “shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports . . . .” Under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, and under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The BER have referenced multiple Code citations, and there are others that could be added to the list. Generally, Engineer K should use all of their knowledge and ability to study the problem, develop solutions, and recommend to the City the option (or options) they believe are best. Engineer K has identified two options for the City to consider—the traditional approach and the sustainable approach. Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included. The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7 , where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility with a system of solar panels. If a system of stand-alone solar panels is selected, the chance of power system unreliability may be increased. The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process; the engineer in BER Case 21-7 was obliged to include information about the potential for rolling blackouts if a reliable generation alternative was not selected. The additional cost to make the solar panel system more reliable by supplementing it with battery storage should be included in the engineer’s report. BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options. BER Case 22-10 ’s discussion noted that Engineer Intern Wasser (an important player in BER Case 22-10 ) “could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives . . . , Wasser . . . can harmonize [Code sections] I.4 and III.2.d.” Engineers should take the opportunity to educate clients. In closing the discussion of BER Case 22-10 , the BER concluded: As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not. The BER next turns to how Engineer K should address disproportionate impact. BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway. Certainly, highway routing concerns and disparate impact have been discussed at depth in the media, and there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9 ). The take aways from these cases are there is not necessarily one correct answer, and that engineers should be creative when looking at solutions. In BER Case 15-12 , the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated? This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team when considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community. For example, analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate the risk if a portion of the traditional system does not work. Ultimately, Engineer K will present the design alternatives to the City decision makers so they can make a choice. Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials. These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions. Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it. In fact, an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b. 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" } ] }