Case Study 2: The Ford Pinto
Case Study 2: The Ford Pinto
Q1 What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? The moral issues in this case start when Ford was faced with the decision to adhere to the standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by delaying production in order to redesign the gas tank, or move forward with the existing design. Their decision relied on a cost-benefit reasoning which has many questionable techniques when it comes to assigning costs based on economic loss. The analysis involved attaching a monetary value to a single human life, and comparing that with the cost savings of keeping the original design. Some would question whether such an analysis is accurate since the value of a human life is subjective, and discounts the non-monetary effects of the death of a human. One could say it is morally wrong to knowingly risk the safety of human lives, in any capacity, for financial or competitive gain.
Q2 Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke? Ford officials would most likely invoke the principles of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in business is often referred to as a method of making decisions which are essentially expedient and concerned with making the most money possible. Furthermore, Ford officials would highlight the cost-benefit analysis used in the “Fatalities Report”. This report suggested the cost of a human life do not outweigh safety improvements to the Pinto, and recommended no safety improvements be made. By relying on this report, it suggests that Ford considered only the greater good for the company as a whole, and minimized the dangerous effects of this decision. This was blatant abuse of the utilitarian approach, and ignores the basic principles involving ethical decision making.
Q3 Utilitarian’s would say that jeopardizing motorists does not by itself make Ford’s action morally objectionable. The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. Do you think Ford did this? Utilitarian’s denies that right action concerns only me. Rather, right action must maximize overall good from the standpoint of the entire community. If consequences are to favor more people overall, then that is what is important under this principal. The dangers in utilitarianism lie with the potential for abuse, and in abandoning the inherent principles, which Ford demonstrated those dangers in their actions and decision making. The decision to not rectify the manufacturing defects with the Pinto represented an attitude of doing no harm, and ignores the right to life and safety. They also used subjective data when measuring human suffering or loss and compared this to cost savings of the company.
Ford only considered the monetary value in their analysis, and used this to define the value of their own needs against the value of human life.