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: Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering. These requirements protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise and by excluding unqualified individuals who might misrepresent their skills and abilities to take advantage of the unsuspecting public. There are ethical concerns when unqualified individuals engage in the practice of engineering. Performance of engineering services by unqualified individuals is detrimental to public safety and to the integrity of the engineering profession at large. Use of the title, “engineer,” conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice. “Engineer” titles used by individuals working for state agencies tends to convey the impression that they are licensed professional engineers, which may cause confusion among the public. Use of creative titles such as “Associate Engineer,” “Building Engineer,” “Forest Practices Engineer” and “Sanitation Engineer” misrepresents qualifications. Unqualified individuals providing these services when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Board of Ethical Review has had the opportunity to review similar cases. In BER Case 92-2 , an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm’s advertising documents listed him as a PE. The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the documents had not been corrected. The BER noted that the EI took the appropriate step by alerting the marketing director of the error and concluded that “[w]hile there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than a negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.” BER Case 95-10 considered an engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including “Engineer” and “Design Engineer.” The case discussion indicated that “Although the industry and governmental agencies sometimes use the term indiscriminently [sic], we in the profession must not.” This case also suggested that most states have in their state licensing act how and when the word “engineer” can be used in a title, usually requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements, but it went on to point out that when “non-degreed personnel have fulfilled the state requirements to be licensed, they may use the term regardless of their formal education.” It should be noted that in the present case, NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: “Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates’ qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.” In light of the fact that Engineer A has been directed to revise his “signed and sealed contract documents” based on [non] Engineer B’s review, Engineer A is working in association with B. Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A “shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…” and is obligated to report Engineer B’s violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f). Professional engineers owe ethical duties to the public that unlicensed individuals merely holding the title of “Engineer” do not owe. Professional engineers are personally and legally responsible for their services and must comply with a professional code of ethics. Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as “Engineers” with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public by posing a significant threat to public health and safety. This clearly undermines both the public’s confidence in the profession and the intent of licensure that professional engineers adhere to minimum standards and technical competence obtained through significant education and practical experience as evidenced by successful completion of a rigorous examination. 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" } ] }