Dennis Gioia Pinto Fires And Personal Ethics Summary

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.

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 customers (drivers of Ford) are the number one stakeholders that lost the most. They might not have lost much money or reputations, but they lost the one thing that you can never get back, their life.

Look around you, anything from the chair that you are sitting on to the phone in your pocket existed thanks to an engineer. We currently live in a world sculpted by the work of technologic professionals. As the significance of the choices made by engineers increases, it has become more and more important to ensure that these choices are ethically correct.Through analysis of Eric Katz’s Nazi Engineers, it is clear that societies ethics ultimately determine the direction in which society moves.

Moral codes are controversial, diverse, and defining. Everyone lives with a standard measure of ethics that tells them right from wrong. In the stories “R.M.S. Titanic”, “Into Thin Air”, “The Dark Side of Everest”, and “Explorers Say There’s Still a lot to Look For”, one or more characters are faced with one decision; save another man and risk their life, or stay safe and leave the others.

Friedman’s free-market approach to business ethics and how it relates to the Ford Pinto case.

The Elkhart County Grand Jury took up the matter and filed a charge of criminal homicide against Ford, the Automobile American Corporation that designed the Pinto car models. According to Elkhart County Grand prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, Ford was guilty of reckless homicide, because the company committed a conscious, plain, and unjustifiable neglect of harm that positioned the gas tank in the rear end of the car without proven protection. Besides, Ford engaged in negligence and substantial deviation from the acceptable standards of conduct. The major focus of the case entailed the expanding and assessment of acceptable standards the company violated in the process of manufacture of Pinto cars.

For this section, I will use the unified ethic, which, as you recall, consists of the three principal positions in moral philosophy – deontology, teleology, and character theory. It combines these positions into an integrated whole and, therefore, provides a practical perspective on the ethical challenges faced by public administrators. The unified ethic encompasses the three key arenas of ethical decision making. Using these, it will buttress my argument that if the actors surrounding the mine disaster had acted using the unified ethic, the sad reality of one hundred eleven lost lives might have never come to

The defense industry is one of the largest recruiters of STEM graduates in the nation. Thousands of engineering students enter this industry and must justify the morality of their work. These engineers work on projects that affect themselves, the engineering profession, and the entire world population. This paper will look into some of the facts surrounding engineering in the defense industry, its intended and unintended consequences, and judge the work of these engineers by applying Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Kantian ethical theories.

In the mid to late 1960’s American automobile manufacturing was being dominated by Japanese imports. These imports, smaller in size than the domestic vehicles at the time, offered an economical and dependable alternative to what American automobiles offered. In order to remain competitive with these Japanese imports Ford chief executive officer Lee Iacoca instructed the Ford manufacturing company to come up with a vehicle for the 1971 sales year to compete with these Japanese imports. The normal time for design and production for a new vehicle line is 43 months but Iacoca ordered the process to be reduced to 25 months in order to compete. The timeline was met but a rear-end impact study was not conducted until after the car was already on sales lots. Drawn to the relatively inexpensive price for a vehicle at the time, Lily Gray purchased a 1972 Ford Pinto. This is where the production flaw of the Pinto was first revealed. Gray was traveling with 13 year old Richard Grimshaw on the highway when she had to slow to avoid a broke down vehicle. Also trying to avoid the broke down vehicle a Ford Galaxy traveling at approximately 50 miles per hour rear ended the Pinto. Almost immediately the Pinto burst into flames, both passengers had severe burns on their bodies, and later Lily Gray would pass away as a result of the burns from the crash.

This paper will explore the perspectives of five engineers who use their skills in different fields to assess their views of the link between ethics and technology as well as determining how to place blame.

Dowie, asserts through his finding that the Ford motor company made a fundamental moral mistake because it made a product which it knew was capable of harming humans. Dowie attacks ford under the condition that they knowingly provided the American market with an unsafe product. This assertion is not correct; Dowie’s article provides contradictory statistics, speculation, and little to no inference. Dowie does not consider does not consider the importance of market forces in his assessment of Fords ethics which is a pertinent aspect of the time. The Pinto was in demand not because of their safety features but because they were cheap and fuel efficient. The Ford motor company was doing what all companies do, that is sell products. Ford’s concern

The assumption that ‘it’s easy to be ethical’ assumes that individuals automatically know that they are facing an ethical dilemma and that they should simply choose to do the right thing. But decision makers may not always recognize that they are facing a moral issue. Rarely do decisions come with waving red flags. Dennis Gioia was recall coordinator at Ford Motor

On September 9, 2016, a veteran engineer of Volkswagen AG by the name of James Robert Liang pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, committing wire fraud, and violating the U.S. Clean Air Act. While working in Germany in 2006, Liang was part of a team charged with producing a new fuel-efficient diesel engine that satisfied new U.S. regulations on vehicle emissions. He and his team eventually came to the conclusion that their engine could not satisfy these new regulations while maintaining consumer expectations of engine performance. Their solution to this dilemma was to implement illegal software (known as a “defeat device”) into newly produced vehicles sold in the U.S. The purpose of this software was to detect any emissions test being performed on a vehicle and alter the results to show cleaner emissions on the onboard computer. Nearly 500,000 vehicles with this defeat device were sold in the U.S.; by 2008, consumers began to experience issues in their vehicles (not knowing it was due to the emission test software), and Liang worked to refine the device even further. The entirety of the scandal eventually came into the public spotlight in 2015 (Guess, 2016, p.1). The subsequent paragraphs of this essay will first discuss Kantian duty ethics and rule utilitarianism, and focus on analyzing the moral implications of Liang’s actions in reference to these moral theories.

In Canada, individual regulating bodies are in place to licence and regulate practitioners in their respective professions. It is in the public’s best interest that these professionals are knowledgeable and driven to progress society in a responsible manner. This includes acting in an ethical manner that aligns with the personal and corporate standards expected of members in a particular profession. The Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) is in place to regulate such behavior among engineers and protect the common interest of the Ontario community. At the end of this paper it will be evident that public welfare is paramount. This will be shown by how it ought to be enforced under the PEO, and how failure of the Ford Pinto was fueled by