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.