...moral theory. And if you'd like to blog on anything in the news send it to me - I'd be delighted to read it and - if it fulfils the criterion of good ethical thinking (!), post it!!!!! Utilitarianism is a normative, consequentialist, empirical philosophy which links the idea of a good action to one which promotes maximum pleasure or happiness, found by adding up costs and benefits (or pains and pleasures). It has two classic formulations - Bentham's hedonistic (pleasure-based) act utilitarianism and Mill's eudaimonistic (happiness-based) rule utilitarianism. In this article we make some preliminary comments on Bentham and Mill before analysing a famous case in 1972 where utilitarian ethics seemed to cause a very immoral outcome - the Ford Pinto case. Click here for a powerpoint presentation on the same subject...
Words: 2307 - Pages: 10
...Commerce (COMM 101) Case 2.3 (The Ford Pinto) Week 4 1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? Moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises included producing dangerous products which are not safe to use it without informing the dangerous of the products to the public. In addition, lobbying the NHTSA to delay the safety measure of the products is also one of the moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises. (53 words) 2. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke? Assess Ford’s handling of the Pinto from the perspective of each of the moral theories discussed in this chapter. The theory of egoism is most suitable to describe the Ford Pinto case. Ford is doing things that benefit the organization itself. In addition, Ford only considered the short term benefits and neglected the long term interests of the organization itself. The handling of the Pinto from the perspective of each of the moral theories is as following. Act utilitarianism says that Ford did not produce the greatest possible balance of cost-benefit calculation for everyone affected. According to the Kant’s categorical imperatives, Ford should not place a monetary value on a human life. Based on W.D.Ross’s 7 basic Prima Facie Duties, Ford failed to apply the duties of nonmalefience because they did not produce safe cars. Lastly, Ford is unethical when applying the ethic of caring. Ford not only produced dangerous products...
Words: 953 - Pages: 4
... Business Ethics Case Study: The Ford Pinto 1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? Answer: The Pinto case raise moral issues in human rights because even there were various ways of making the Pinto’s tank safer they refused technical improvement to prevent gas tanks from leaking. Given that number of people killed by fires from car, how they can value those individuals’ lives? Ford officials decide not to push the modification of the cars because it will be costly for them and not considering human’s life. 2. Supposed Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke? Assess Ford’s handling of the Pinto from the perspective of each of the moral theories discussed in this chapter. Answer: With the use of risk/benefit analysis required by NHTSA, Ford officials justified in its decision not to change the Pinto model to increase vehicle safety, not considering the balance outlook on company’s perspective and human safeness. The moral principles that should invoke Ford officials is the act utilitarianism because this approach evaluates each action separately and the consequences that arise including any harms and benefits incurred by any people involved in the case. 3. Utilitarians 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...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...exciting assignment but I wanted to show some of my more formal writing.) When Ford began development of the Pinto in 1968, the company hoped that the car’s smaller size and price tag would help it compete with Japanese and German competition, who were mounting their takeover of the subcompact auto market. Ford president Lee Iacocca wanted the Pinto to be less than 2,000 pounds and less than $2,000 so it could stand out when released into a division of automobiles Ford did not have much experience in. In order to get the Pinto released as soon as possible, the design and manufacturing process was cut from three and a half years down to two. While testing the Pinto, it became apparent that due to the gas tank in the car was at great risk for fire hazard when struck from the rear, even at low speeds. The necessary improvements to make the Pinto safer were not complex or costly; they simply needed a barrier between the gas tank and the bumper of the car, which meant an added $5 to $8 to produce each car. To prevent the gas tank leaking during rollovers, another $11 would have to be spent on production. Ford was presented with a dilemma: to release the Pinto as scheduled and risk the safety of those who purchased it or spend more time designing the car, thereby seceding more of the subcompact auto market to the competition. After a cost-benefit analysis of the safety improvements and the potential death toll, Ford decided to release the model without the safety improvements. Their estimation...
Words: 1261 - Pages: 6
...Identify the relevant facts of the Ford Pinto case: In 1970 Ford introduced the Pinto, a small car that was intended to compete with the then current challenge from European cars and the ominous presence on the horizon of Japanese manufacturers. The Pinto was brought from inception to production in the record time of approximately 25 months, where a normal car usually takes 43 months. This showed an expedited time frame for the Pinto. On top of time pressure the team was also required to follow a limit of 2000, that meaning it could not exceed $2000 in cost and it could not weight more than 2000lbs. When it came to routine crash testing of the Pinto, it was revealed that the Pinto’s fuel tank often ruptured when struck from the rear at a relatively low speed. This was because the fuel tank was positioned between the rear bumper and the rear axle, and when impact was made studs from the axle would puncture the fuel tank, spilling gasoline that could be ignited by the sparks. In crash testing 11 vehicles, 8 of the cars suffered potentially catastrophic gas tank ruptures. There were several possibilities for fixing the problem, but given the restrictions of limit of 2000, they made no changes. The most controversial reason for rejecting the production change was because of Ford’s cost-benefit analysis. Ford believed that the cost of rebuilding the Pinto to make it safer were far more expensive than the cost of life for each fatality. Due to schema, the Pinto was found okay to sell on the...
Words: 2088 - Pages: 9
...“Ford Pinto Case” After watching this video about the Ford Pinto Case, I think their decision was no ethical, because of the cost-benefit analyses they applied, trying to determine if the flaw in Ford Pinto automobiles is worth the financial risk in comparison to the value in human life, which is unconscionable and indefensible. Ford estimated that each dead that could be avoided would be worth $200.000 and each major burn injury $67.000 and average for repair cost of $700 per car involved in an accident. Moreover, it assumed that there would be 2100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries and 180 burn deaths. And when they made some math, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, which are much greater than the $49.5 million benefit. Furthermore, Ford chose to pay for possible lawsuits instead of repairing the Ford Pinto. If Ford had the right business ethic and moral integrity to put consumer safety first, instead of profit and competition, then there would have been no loss of life or financial suffering. Sometimes, you have to believe that the end justify the means. And that happened to me, four months ago. I had to go to Cuba, for an emergency. And I had no money in that moment to pay for it, so I applied for a credit card, which, one of the point while applying, was to say what my annual income was, and I had to lie about it. Because, if you say it is less than 20.000, the credit card company will only give you a credit line of 2000, or less. Now, if you say that...
Words: 344 - Pages: 2
...21 June 2013 The Ford Pinto Case The big question which needs an answer in this case is if Ford should have installed a device to prevent the Ford Pinto from exploding into a fiery ball upon impact for the safety of its occupants. Before an answer can be determined, let’s look at the facts of this case. “In the late 1960s, American automobiles were losing market share to smaller Japanese imports (DeGeorge 298).” Ford felt the need to compete to keep ahead domestically so it developed the subcompact care, the Ford Pinto. Lee Iacocca, the CEO at the time ordered Ford to produce a car for 1971 that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and priced at less than $2,000. The engineers of Ford came out with the Ford Pinto. It took 25 months to design and produce the Ford Pinto. The industry norm it should take is 43 months. Due to the shorter production period, Ford tested the Pinto for rear-impact safety after production. The Pinto failed the test with 37 out of 40 attempts. The crash test revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. The gas tank would rupture by four sharp bolts on the rear axle with an impact of over 25 mph spilling fuel on the ground. The engineers designed the Pinto so the gas tank would set behind the rear axle to allow for more trunk space. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 required vehicles to withstand rear-end collisions of 28 mph. The three times the Pinto passed was in cars equipped with three different modifications to the fuel tank. Installing a plastic...
Words: 1317 - Pages: 6
...FORD PINTO CASE The Ford management has chosen to be unethical and morally unworthy to be trusted with the lives of its customers. Can you just imagine the number of individuals riding every day in the cars that they produced, who are unaware that they could be in an injury any moment? Ford management has chosen not to follow the safety guidelines and standards in producing such products because at that time, the government is still not that strict in implementing such rules. And because of their eagerness to meet the production schedule, they have reduced the time allotted for the rear-end impact testing just to introduce such product on the market on time. They disregarded their customer’s safety and the possibility of injury or death just for the sake of small profit or share in the market. Ford with its utilitarian perspective, which the decision not to recall such products or even warn its customers, served the greater amount of good to those who are affected, hose who will benefit from the profit it will get. It has also regarded its decision as to having no instinctive value even when it is showing obvious consequences. The cost-benefit analysis that was used by Ford was also to blame. The cost amounting to $137M versus the $49.5M estimated for the cost of injuries, deaths, and car damages has been the deciding factor for Ford not to implement the design changes that would have made the cars safer. Ford used the formula so as not to legally implement the changes. However...
Words: 360 - Pages: 2
...Appendix 2: Ford Pinto Case and Cost Benefit Analysis Edited by Richard Brooks In 1968 in response to strong foreign competition, Ford decided to build a subcompact car — the Pinto — on a 2×2×2 plan (2,000 pounds, $2,000, in 2 years). In pre-launch tests, Ford discovered that rear end collisions propelled the gas tank onto the real axle, which had protrusions that ruptured the tank and caused the car to catch fire. Yet Ford did Figure 1: Ford Pinto not modify the Pinto’s rear axle. Nor did it follow through on an idea to place a rubber bladder in the fuel tank. Why? The reason seems to have been that these changes would have increased the price, lowered sales and reduced profit. That reason is given credence in a cost/benefit study done on modifying the Pinto. So the Ford Pinto went on sale with dangerous design faults in the position of the fuel tank and nearby bolts, and the tendency for the fuel valve to leak in rollover accidents. Design and production was rushed and cost of the vehicle kept down to sell it at $2000. It sold well, until 1972 when four people died and one young boy was horrendously burned and disfigured; these are only a few of the incidents that resulted from the Pinto’s flaws, many more followed, costing Ford millions in compensation. The engineers were fully aware of the flaws, yet the company continued to sell the car as it was, without safety modifications. Ford applied a generic cost/benefit analysis to accidents based on National Highway Traffic...
Words: 703 - Pages: 3
...Under the leadership of Ford CEO Lee Lacocca, The Ford Pinto Company introduced in 1971 in Canada, and later in U.S, had reputation as being the safety pioneer in the automobile industry. But was trouble impending, the car did not pass on the test, meaning that it failed bellow the state of the art for cars of that size. The design of the car flaws in its Pinto model could cause the car to burst into flames even in minor rear-end collisions. At the time there was no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rear-end impact standard. Understandably American automobiles were losing market share in the 1960’s due to cheaper Japanese imports. Smaller, cheaper, better gas mileage, and lighter all meant better value to the consumers. Competition is suppose to fuel innovation and help make better products with smilier or better value. In this case Lee Iaccoca did not make a better product. Iaccoca wanted to simply compete and with the Japanese imports. In 1971 The Ford Pinto was made and produced in a accelerated fashion, so it was designed and produced in 25 months rather than the 43 months that it should have taken. Truth to be told it was a decent design it weighed under 2000 pounds and it cost less then 2000 dollars. The only really down fall was the rear-end design the Pinto was not really tested for rear-end impact, and when Ford engineers testing the rear-end impact for standard safety procedure the car failed the test. To make matters worse the rear-end testing...
Words: 1779 - Pages: 8
...Ford Pinto Case Solution The Ford Pinto was a disaster waiting to happen. The damage that the Lee Iacocca and Ford executives allow to happen was not only tragic but they were preventable. Because of Lee Iacoccas hurry and pressure of the creation of the auto was high, and this lead to the unfortunate dilemma. The Ford Pinto study has shown that Iacocca put to high of a demand on the team that was responsible for the creation of the Pinto. Fist the Pinto should never gone into production before some very important tests were completed, one of which was a complete crash study. Its known that Ford engineers knew that rear collision tests needed to be done but ignored until after the auto was put in to production. This one test could have saved hundreds of lives. Solution to dilemma In the late 1960s, the standard time to spend in development of a car was roughly 4 years. The engineers of the pinto only had 2. There would have been more testing for the safety of the passengers through a when it came to the placement of the gas tank or the bumper. Once the Testing was done the engineers would have known that with “A rear-end collision of about twenty-eight miles per hour or more would crush the car's rear end, driving the fuel tank against the differential housing and causing it to split and the filler pipe to break loose” thus resulting in fatal accidents. Because of the results of the tests a baffle would have been placed between the gas tanks for protection...
Words: 323 - Pages: 2
...the Ethical Dilemma in the Ford Pinto Case On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Today, the debate continues regarding whether or not The Ford Motor Company was responsible for this case and many other cases involving the Pinto bursting into flames resulting in disfigurement or death. Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty fuel system in the car that would rupture with any rear end collision or rollover accident; this resulted in the deaths of over 500 people. Many also accuse Ford of being fully aware of the faults with the Pinto and selling it to the public anyway. Letting the people die because of the Pinto and settling with their families was more economical than recalling the vehicle and fixing the shortcomings of the Pinto. The question remains regarding whether or not Ford put a price on human lives, or if the company was not at fault for simply trying to compete with foreign car companies to put an American made fuel efficient vehicle on the road. Ford was accused of not accounting for benefit and harm in an ethical business decision, zero personal evaluation, and...
Words: 323 - Pages: 2
...surrounding the Ford Pinto case was The Ford Motor Company's choices made during development to compromise safety for efficiency and profit maximization. More specifically, it was Ford's decision to use the cost/benefit analysis detailed in section 11 to make production decisions that translated into lost lives. During the initial production and testing phase, Ford set "limits for 2000" for the Pinto. That meant the car was not to exceed $2000 in cost or 2000 pounds in weight. This set tough limitations on the production team. After the basic design was complete, crash testing was begun. The results of crash testing revealed that when struck from the rear at speeds of 31 miles per hour or above, the Pinto's gas tank ruptured. The tank was positioned according to the industry standard at the time (between the rear bumper and the rear axle), but studs protruding from the rear axle would puncture the gas tank. Upon impact, the fuel filler neck would break, resulting in spilled gasoline. The Pinto basically turned into a death trap. Ford crash tested a total of eleven automobiles and eight resulted in potentially catastrophic situations. The only three that survived had their gas tanks modified prior to testing.55 Ford was not in violation of the law in any way and had to make the decision whether to incur a cost to fix the obvious problem internally. There were several options for fuel system redesign. The option most seriously considered would have cost the Ford Motor Company and...
Words: 428 - Pages: 2
...Ford Pinto Case Study MGT/216 November 11, 2010 Executive Summary In the1960's, the American small-car industry had strong competition for Ford, Volkswagen and several Japanese companies. In order to battle their challengers, Ford expedited its most contemporary automobile, the Pinto, into manufacturing. Fabrication was completed in a smaller extent of time than is generally mandatory to generate an automobile. The expected time to produce a vehicle is forty-three months however Ford took no more than twenty- five months (Trevino & Nelson, 2007). While Ford had the opportunity to produce a new model that would decline the risk of the Ford Pinto from blowing up, the corporation selected not to execute the plan. This design expense would have a rate of $11 for each vehicle. A study demonstrated the innovative plan would have resulted in a reduced amount of 180 casualties. The corporation argued that they had utilized the traditional risk-benefit tests to decide if the financial expense of adjusting the modifications were larger than society’s shared benefit (Safety X Change, 2009). Ford relied on the figures; the cost would have been $137 million vs. the $49.5 million; a printed fee placed on the vehicle for damages, casualties and injuries. Three adolescent girls passed away in a 1973 Ford Pinto on August 10, 1978, after being impacted from the back by a driver in a small truck (University of Phoenix, 2007). The Ford Pinto was totally immersed in fire and the undesirable...
Words: 989 - Pages: 4
...The Ford Pinto Case Team B Management 216 May 10, 2011 Ian Finley The Ford Pinto Case The horrific tragedy that took place on August 10, 1978 involving Judy Ann Ulrich, Lynn Marie, and Donna Ulrich was a real eye opener to a lot of consumers regarding the Ford Pinto. A van collided into the back of the young girl’s car causing the Pinto to collapse, the fuel tank to rupture, and the car to engulf into flames. Donna and Lynn Marie were trapped inside and suffered to death as a result of the combustion of the vehicle. Judy Ann was able to be extracted from the wreckage but passed away several hours later at a hospital. Two months prior to the casualty, Ford recalled all Pintos produced from 1971 to 1976 to repair their inadequate gas tanks. Ford only took the initiative for the recall after it was revealed that more than fifty people had died in Pinto-related collisions. With the introduction of the Ford Pinto, Ford’s desire for competition, led the company to overlook known construction flaws and their own moral code to endure higher profits. Lynne Marie and Donna Ulrich, along with Richard Grimshaw and the unidentified neighbor; how do you assign a value to a human life? According to the Ford Motor Representatives in the Ford Pinto Fires Case, it is quite simply done with a cost/benefits formula analysis. We’d like to believe that those lost are the only people that mattered, the people whom Ford Motor Company should have considered when they turned down a $137.5...
Words: 1068 - Pages: 5
