Ford And Firestone Have Been Working Together For Over 100 Years

Utilitarianism is a teological ethical framework that offers a way to analyze the transistor company’s dilemma. Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, meaning that the theory only takes in account the consequences of an action to determine if that action is morally right. More specifically, Kay (1997) explains “utilitarian ethics defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (p. X). For example, it would be acceptable to a utilitarian to kill one person if it meant saving two more people. This is in stark contrast with deontological ethics, which prohibits actions that use people as a means to an end.

Ford should produce the products that are safe to be used. Besides that, Ford should also be honest to the customer by providing the truth information to the customer. In this case, the most important moral rights is every human being has the inherent right to live. Thus, Ford should disclose the dangerous of their products to the customer.

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.

Sapiro had evidence that Ford threatened himself with Anti-Semitic sentiments. Ford was recorded as saying, “Sapiro is a shrewd little Jew. The bible says Jews will return to Palestine, but they want to get all the money out of America first. Sapiro should be kicked out because he is trash..” The result of the trial was humiliation for the Ford company and Henry Ford himself. After a hung jury in the first trial, the case was dropped when Ford wrote a lengthy retraction and apologized for his statements. Ford’s was declining in profits and production! among the worlds best. All as a result of Henry Ford’s ego. Thus, by 1931 Ford lowered in the ranks, controlling only 28% of the market 2nd to GM with 31%.

When you hear the word “Ford” more often then not people are going to think of automobiles. This is not surprising because a man gave

Ford Motor Company has been and till the date is known as the king of innovations in the automobile industry. Their research & development department and innovation of interchangeable parts in moving assembly lines resulted in extraordinary global extension for them. They are an old heritage who ruled and still doing impressive jobs in the global automobile market. Some prestigious motor brands are also owned by Ford.

In this essay, I will argue that Ford Motor Company’s business behavior was unethical as demonstrated in the Ford Pinto Case. Ford did not reveal all the facts to consumers about a harmful gas tank design in the Ford Pinto. They tried to justify their decision to sell an unsafe car by using a Cost-Benefit Analysis which determined it was cheaper to sell the cars without changing to a safer gas tank. The price of not fixing the gas tanks is human injuries and fatalities. By choosing not to make the Pinto a safer vehicle Ford placed a price on the head of every consumer. Ford’s primary concern was to maximize profits. Ford had a duty and ethical responsibility to customers to

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

One of the many problems during the hearing is the emergence GM not only knowing about the defective ignition switch, but they also switched the defective product for a working one, yet still kept the same product number. In addition, during Senator Boxer’s questioning, she revealed that GM made a decision not to fix the defective product due to GM claiming that it “was not an effective business decision” due to the high cost of fixing the problem and the length of time it would take. Senator Nelson also brought up the issue of how people would be able to drive cars that are known to have the defects, citing that customers deserve compensation in a quick and effective process and are not satisfied with GM’s solution of driving “with only the car key in the ignition”.

The means were limited design time and reducing costs. By cutting costs, Ford knowingly created a product which could prove dangerous and fatal to its consumers. Does Ford’s ends justify its means? Ford did create a sub-compact that sold extremely well and competed fiercely with foreign imports. The goal of the Ford Pinto was met. The costs of this win were substantial however. The money that Ford tried to save by not recalling the vehicle was spent when Ford recalled the Pinto, and extra was spent in compensatory and punitive damages in lawsuits. So the costs that Ford tried to avoid were incurred anyway along with extra.

The Ford Motor Company and General Motors have greatly influenced and shaped the global automobiles industry over the 20th Century. While there are other big car-makers both in the United States and elsewhere in the globe, the two companies have been the commonest and significant players across the entire sector. This research focuses on an argument of how competition between both companies has benefited them.

In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s several accidents were reported of Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires rolling over as a consequence of tires’ failures. By the end of 2000 the death toll was estimated at more than 250, and some

The brand image of Ford was damaged due to the product recalls of the Escape Sport Utility Vehicle due to engine fires and the Ford Focus

The CBA itself did not force Ford to act unethically, their greed and their sole priority to avoid extra cost even if it meant the loss of a human life drove them to an unethical decision. Ford faced a simple problem, do they fix the Pinto or do they kill innocent people. Sadly, they preferred the money saving option, which was to ignore the defect and to pay compensates to effected families and loved ones. The company defended their decision using the CBA model as if they were legally exonerated from any penalties due to their actions. Fortunately, the jury did not see it as if their decision was justifiable even if the method to evaluate the decision