Ethics 368
22 June 2014
The Ford Pinto Case from a Utilitarian Perspective “Utilitarianism adopts a teleological approach to ethics and claims that actions are to be judged by their consequences” (DeGeorge 44). When looking at an decision from this view, we are to be impartial that decisions are not right or wrong by themselves, but also that we must analyze the results to determine if actions are good or bad. We know that Ford became more completive in the subcompact market from the Pinto sold in 1971 thru 1978. Ford also captured their fair share of the market for subcompact. There are several things about utilitarianism that make it appealing as a standard for moral decisions in business. One of them being “act utilitarian”, which holds individual actions to a test. “A theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and introduced to the world in his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, released in back in the 17th century” (Bentham, Jeremy). There are many ways to determine the outcome of an action. Our reactions to pain and pleasure is a measure. The good that an action provides for the majority of those involved or the greatest number of people is another. Ford had a product to deliver and consumers wanted it. In determining whether this action produces more pain or pleasure for the majority, hedonistic calculus can be used. It is easier to be impartial, when using this calculus on an ethical decision. The calculus weighs all the factors involved in the choice and all are given equal consideration. According to DeGeorge, “Bentham was a hedonistic utilitarian” (DeGeorge 46). He said in order “to evaluate the pleasure or pain produced by an action, there are various aspects of the pleasure and pain that we should consider” (DeGeorge 46). The various aspects used in the hedonistic evaluations are intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, and, purity (DeGeorge 46). Bentham had no hierarchy of pleasure, and so, went for quantity over quality. The hedonistic evaluations can be used in the Ford Pinto case, but before we evaluate the ethics of the case, we must first understand the mindset or goals of all parties involved. After all, consequentialism is a moral document holding that the right act in any given situation is the one that will produce the best overall outcome, as judged from an impersonal standpoint giving equal weight to the interest of everyone. Taking an impersonal standpoint in examining the definitions and concept of the theory in relations to Business Ethic and the ethical decisions faced by the Ford Motor Company, the Ford Pinto Case will be used. As stated by DeGeorge, “We can generalize Bentham’s analysis to any value or good we are taking into account” (DeGeorge 46). To get a sense of what was happening at the time, we can narrow this case down to two questions directed at the company and the consumer. What product was the Ford Motor Company introducing for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people? What did Americans want in terms of domestic cars to offset rising gas prices? The utilitarian approach evaluates each action separately and the consequences that arise from them. When looking at these actions and others, we can better evaluate the pleasure and pain produced by an action. According to Bentham, “in order to understand the interest of the community, one must understanding what the interest of the individual is. A thing is said to promote the interest, or to be for the interest, of an individual, when it tends to add to the sum total of his pleasures” (Bentham, Jeremy). In 1970 gas prices on average was about thirty-one cents and on the rise. Many car buyers were looking for smaller and more gas friendly vehicles. Foreign markets continued to show promise with smaller and more gas friendly vehicles at very affordable prices. In the late 1960s, American automobiles were losing market share to smaller Japanese imports (DeGeorge 298). “The Japanese were enjoying the phenomenal growth in what was still a very small industry--the 482,000 Japanese vehicles produced represented nearly a 700% growth in production over the 1955 figures” (Automobile Industry). The Ford Motor Company began to feel the pressure of not being able to compete with smaller and more gas friendly vehicles. The CEO of Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacocca wanted to introduce a car that could compete with the small cars or subcompact market. Ford Motor Company introduced the Ford Pinto. To answer the subcompact market demands, Ford relied heavily on the success of the Pinto. They wanted very much to produce a subcompact that was less expensive could get great gas mileage. The evidence is shown when they speak of the decreased production schedule, indicating they would produce a subcompact in “twenty-five months rather than the normal forty-three months for a new car line” (DeGeorge 298). The accelerated schedule meant that design changes normally made before would have to be made after the Pinto is produced. Ford Pinto sales of Pinto, was very competitive with other auto makers even with the existing problem of rear end safety test. Ford did conduct a study and determined a fix could be made to existing design. From a utilitarian’s view, jeopardizing consumers does not by itself make Ford’s action morally wrong. Ford did consider the interest of the company and the consumer. They did a cost-benefit analysis against changing the design and cost of potential lawsuits from accidental injuries or death”, the result of which favored the company. Ford did not change the design from 1971 to 1978” (DeGeorge 299). To determine an individual’s pleasure or pain from an action, Bentham suggested weighing Intensity (pleasure’s strength), Duration (how long pleasure would last), Certainty (the probability action will result in pleasure), Propinquity (how soon the pleasure might occur), Fecundity (the chance, the pleasure would result in further actions), and Purity (the probability these further actions would be pleasures and not pains) (Sundem, Garth). “He also added Extent, taking into account the effects of decision on by people” (Sundem, Garth). After all factors are considered, pleasure wins in terms of overall company and customer appreciation, making it ethical for the Pinto to be introduced and sold. The actions by the company were within standards at the time of release without additional design, when considering the whole. Reports indicated that the customers were happy with the new subcompact. The Ford Motor Company was happy to have a product that was competitive in the subcompact market. In conclusion, most arguments against the Pinto center on jeopardizing the motorist over company policy, an argument that is hard to measure from a utilitarian point of view. Ford did consider the interest of each affected party. The Ford Pinto was built ahead of schedule. It did have production issues that were taking into consideration to include safety test. However, the company had a good market of consumers that wanted to purchase the vehicle. Consumers wanted the vehicle because of the less expensive price and the great gas millage. In the end, the pleasures made up for the pains. The company acted ethically for the greater good.

Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.” N.p., n.d. Web. 18 June 2014.
DeGeorge Richard, T. Business Ethics. 7th. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2010.
Schofield, Philip. Bentham : A Guide For The Perplexed. London: Continuum, 2009. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 18 June 2014.
Sundem, Garth. “If It Feels Good, Do It: Jeremy Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus.” science 2.0, 6 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 June 2014.
“The Automobile Industry, Since 1960.”. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 June 2014.