Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 79-2 (1979) · Public Criticism - Environmental Concerns
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
No resolved obligation competitions are committed for this case.
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Environmental Consideration Duty vs Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Duty
What the board concluded
- Engineers A and B acted ethically by participating in the design approach requested by the town council.
- Engineer C acted ethically in publicly challenging the design approach adopted by Engineers A and B.