Exploring the dialectic between abstract rules and concrete facts: Operationalizing principles and cases in engineering ethics

  • Bruce McLaren
  • Kevin Ashley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1488)


Abstract rules and specific fact situations interact in a highly complex fashion in engineering ethics, a weak analytic domain. In such domains, the construction of arguments or explanations does not rely on formal methods or proofs. Rather, experienced reasoners appear to address problems by applying ethical principles using a variety of techniques. In our study of a national engineering society's set of engineering ethics cases decided by an ethical review board, we have identified a number of operationalization techniques which help to fill the gap between abstract principles and specific case facts and which help to analyze new problems. Our goal is to develop a computational model that is capable of retrieving and applying operationalizations for the purpose of making accurate predictions of the facts, principles, and past cases that would be regarded as important in the analysis of new cases. In this paper, we present a preliminary design of such a model and outline an experiment to test it. We expect to make a contribution to interpretive case-based reasoning (CBR) by shedding light on the role of principles in decision making, by investigating the connection between abstract rules and concrete facts, and by testing the feasibility of using detailed, factual chronologies to represent cases.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, J. (1983). Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals, In the Communications of the ACM, 26(11): 832–843.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley, K. D. and McLaren, B. M. (1995). Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons. In the Proceedings From the First International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Portugal.Google Scholar
  3. Branting, L. K. (1994). A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi. In Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 1–31. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. Branting, L. K. (1991). Building Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34 (6): 797–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D. and Law, K. (1994). MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-based Retrieval. In Cognitive Science 19, 141–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. In Cognitive Science 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Golding, A. R. (1991). Pronouncing Names By a Combination of Rule-Based and Case-Based Reasoning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., and Rabins, M. J. (1995). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Holyoak, K. I. and Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Jonsen A. R. and Toulmin S. (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. University of CA Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. Keane, M., Ledgeway, T. and Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on Analogical Mapping: A Comparison of Three Models. In Cognitive Science 18, 387–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  13. McLaren, B. M. and Ashley, K. D. (1995). Case-Based Comparative Evaluation in TRUTH-TELLER. In the Proceedings From the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  14. NSPE (1958–1996). Opinions of the Board of Ethical Review, Volumes I through VII and the NSPE Ethics Reference Guide. Published by the National Society of Professional Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
  15. Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. (1996a). BankXX: Supporting Legal Arguments through Heuristic Retrieval. In Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 1–71. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. (1996b). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. Technical Report, CMPSCI TR95-30, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a Hybrid Architecture. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34 (6): 839–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strong, C. (1988). Justification in Ethics. In Baruch A. Brody, editor, Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce McLaren
    • 1
  • Kevin Ashley
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems ProgramUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations