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 overriding issue for the Board of Ethical Review (BER) to consider in this case is that of the actions of Firm DBA. The ethical requirements of Firm DBA must be clarified before establishing what actions are required by Engineer M. As stated, Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA’s report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim. These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact However, does the Code apply to Firm DBA? If the individuals most heavily involved in the project at Firm DBA are Certified Public Relations Professionals, they would be held to a code of ethics that provides for honest and truthful conduct. However, the BER will not comment on these potential obligations, as it is beyond the BER’s duties to review other codes. In BER Case 60-3 , the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services and, because of that, the firm was not required to abide by the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct. The conclusion by the BER in BER Case 60-3 was that the Canons and Rules did not apply. However, the Code has been revised since that time. The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership. It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm’s business dealings simply because the services being provided were not engineering from a design, calculation, or engineering judgment perspective but were confined to communication and public relation services. The Preamble of the Code of states that professional behavior requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA. BER Case 98-2 addressed the ethical concerns of an international NSPE member that encountered separate and conflicting legal and ethical issues working in a county other than the U.S. In that case the BER determined that the engineer was bound by the Code and stated that “it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members.” Although that case was based on geographical concerns rather than the type of services provided, it was determined that the Code applied to members universally. In BER Case 88-6 , Engineer A had the responsibility for a city’s waste disposal plant and is also directly responsible to City Administrator C. Engineer A informed City Administrator C of the inadequacy of the disposal plant in a certain potential scenario. City Administrator C told Engineer A to discuss this matter only with him and, subsequentially, removed Engineer A from responsibility of the disposal plant. Engineer A took no further action. The critical scenario did, in fact, happen and a release of partially-treated wastewater occurred. The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. In BER Case 09-10 , Engineer A owned ABC Engineering in State P. Engineer X owned XYZ Engineering in State Q. Engineer X was retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P. Client L was a former client of Engineer A’s firm. Engineer A learned that XYZ Engineering did not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P. The question to the BER was to evaluate what Engineer A’s ethical obligations would be under these facts. The BER found that Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question. The BER further found that if Engineer A was not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X’s explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board. In BER Case 21-7 , the question put to the BER was as follows: should an Engineer include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to an organization? The BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization. A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare. Likewise, in this case, pertinent information was missing from the report. By this reasoning, Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d. The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences. If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative. Again, Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b. As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code. The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed. Should Firm DBA acknowledge their ethical obligations after being confronted by Engineer M, a more immediate resolution to the issues may be realized and Firm DBA could correct the discrepancies. A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections. Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved. After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA’s actions to the state’s engineering licensure board. Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state’s engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future. 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" } ] }