You are on page 1of 2

Business Ethics

Case Review #1: Ford Pinto



1.) FACTS
Ford was aware of gas tank defects on their Pinto model
Ford ignored the safety concerns, positing safety doesnt sell (p. 66)
Ford based their decision off a cost-benefit analysis
o Determined the cost of trunk alterations outweighed the cost of enhanced safety
There were over 40 incidents involving Pinto passengers dying or being severely maimed

2.) ETHICAL ISSUES
Is it morally right to sell a car with known, potentially fatal, defects?

3.) PARTIES
Ford Motor Company
Ford Management
Ford Design Team
Ford Quality Control
Ford Pinto Drivers

4.) CONSEQUENCES
Utilitarian Principle: Fords decision should have maximized the benefits and minimized the
harm for consumers.
The standard implicit in their decision was that since it was only a minority being injured, and
they would reap a significant profit (with a majority of consumers being unaffected) their
decision was permissible.
Potential Consequences by party:
o Ford Motor Company potential public backlash/potential legal action/potential
monetary penalties/potential loss of credibility with the public
o Ford Management potential loss of profits to rival manufacturers/potential jail
time/potential loss of position/potential loss of credibility
o Ford Design Team- potential job loss/potential compensation penalties/potential jail time
o Ford Quality Control potential loss of credibility/potential loss of jobs
o Ford Pinto Drivers potential loss of life/potential injuries or disabilities from vehicle
operation
It would appear that every obligation would UNDERMINE the decision to proceed forward with
production of faulty vehicles

5.) OBLIGATIONS
Kants categorical imperative would be applicable in this scenario
The action here allowing potentially fatal vehicles to put into production would not be willed
into a universal law. Conversely, universal law would state that a manufacturer should ensure that
all products made available to the public would be aligned with the highest safety standards
Obligations by Party:
o Ford Motor Company ensure all vehicles they produce are in the highest spirit of safety,
with no exceptions
o Ford Management maximize their efforts to ensure they company they run holds
customer safety in the highest regard
o Ford Design Team ensure all designs meet the most rigorous safety requirements
o Ford Quality Control disallow any design that does not hold up to the highest safety
scrutiny
o Ford Pinto Drivers purchase a car they have determined to be of utmost safety
It would again appear that every obligation listed prior would undermine the ultimate decision
made by Ford Motor Co.

6.) CHARACTER & INTEGRITY
Fords core values should be as follows:
o Honestly
o Transparency
o Dependability
o Integrity
o Safety
These issues undermine the decision made by the company, as all of these values were
compromised at least once in making the decision to proceed forward with a faulty design

7.) CONCLUSIONS
Utilitarian it is immoral to compromise safety due to profit when manufacturing a product for
the masses. The greatest benefit for the masses isnt a defective product
Kants categorical imperative it was immoral to product a product with known defects, as this
behavior could not be willed into universal law
Values Fords integrity and character were both compromised in making and distributing a
vehicle with known defects. They lacked transparency and honesty in not informing consumers,
and sacrificed dependability and safety because of monetary not human concerns.

8.) GUT
The conclusions reached are aligned with my gut instinct.

9.) ALTERNATIVES
Re-design the model at whatever financial loss as soon as defects were brought to light
Recall models made before NHTSAs Standard 301 safety standard, so that they may be brought
to conformity
Inform public of potential risk so that consumers can make educated decisions about future
purchases from Ford Motor Co.

You might also like