1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise?
That businesses should not be putting a value on human life and disregard a known deadly danger. Ford thought they could get away with a dangerous automobile by paying off those lawsuits from people who were injured and the families of the dead. Ford thought it was more cost effective not to fix the dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people.

2. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke?
The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements was $11 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design. Ford has always denied that the Pinto is unsafe compared with other cars of its type and era. The company also points out that in every model year the Pinto met or surpassed the government’s own standards. But what the company doesn’t say is that successful lobbying by it and its industry associates was responsible for delaying for seven years the adoption of any NHTSA crash standard.

3. 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?
No, Ford was more worried about saving money on having to repair/ convert millions of vehicles. Instead they should have taken their time designing the Pinto with safety as a top priority. They were more worried to “catch” their competitors in the subcompact market.

4. Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What role should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study. Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way?
Yes it is a legitimate tool. Companies have used it successfully to make money. It works well if it is used properly. In the case of the Ford Pinto it should have never been used, especially when putting a value on a human life. Ford should have looked at it as what is the right thing to do, not what do they gain or lose.

5. Speculate about Kant’s response to the idea of placing a monetary value on a human life. Is doing so ever morally legitimate? No, A human life is priceless.