Ford Pinto Paper

The moral issues about the Ford Pinto is that they take their profit is more important than human life. They also did not inform the consumer about the facts of the Pinto. Lastly, they also lobbied the safety of the car to lowest standard (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp 97-99).

This paper explores how ethical issues of Pinto case have affected the Ford Motor Company business environment. A number of factors suggest that Ford Motor Company was negligent and violated its code of ethics. In this paper, we will review the corporate culture mindset which prioritizes profit over the value of human life for the purpose financial gain.

This paper will go into detail about the young life, career and adult life of Henry Ford. Henry ford’s young life, in this paper will consist of his childhood. The paper will then describe all of his education and early jobs. Finally, this paper will conclude with Henry Ford’s adult life and home life (what he did when he wasn’t working), his career’s work and the impact Henry had on American History. This paper should help the reader better understand the life of Henry Ford: Who he was? Who he is? And why he was so vital to our American History.

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.

In May of 1968, the Ford Motor Company, based upon a recommendation by then vice-president Lee Iacocca, decided to introduce a subcompact car and produce it domestically.  In an effort to gain a large market share, the automobile was designed and developed on an accelerated schedule.  During the first few years sales of the Pinto were excellent, but there was trouble on the horizon.

White Collar Crime, known by many as a form of crime that is greatly overlooked throughout the criminal justice system, has proven itself time and time again to be just as dangerous and damaging to those affected as all other crimes combined. There have been many cases throughout our nation’s past that have not only scarred, but ended hundreds of lives as a result of White Collar Crime. One in particular, is the popularly known Ford Pinto Case. The constant want for more, more money, more product, more success, by many top corporation leaders throughout the United States, has resulted in deathly consequences, in which those responsible receive very little repercussions for. In pursuit for these great things, Ford Motor Company was willing to anything necessary to remain at the top of the auto industry. As stated in the article, Case: The Ford Pinto, throughout Detroit, home of Ford Motor Company, worry had quickly turned to panic as Japanese and German subcompact vehicles began to take over the market (Shaw & Berry, 2001). Due to Ford’s relentless desire to stay competitive with the many other successful car companies throughout the world, the decision was made to create the Ford Pinto, in hopes of giving them the edge they needed. Little did buyers know, the creation of this vehicle would be the cause of several deaths and injuries as a result of Ford Motor Company’s willingness to do anything necessary in order to generate more revenue

1970 to 1980 Ford Motor Company produced a car that stayed within “the limits of 2000.” This car would weight no more than 2,000 lbs. and wouldn’t cost the customer more than $2,000. This vehicle was extremely fuel efficient, easy on both the consumer and manufactures wallet, and quick to produce. Sounds great doesn’t it? Well it was, consumers loved the Ford Pinto, and Ford was pleased they were keeping up in a time when overseas dealers were threating their very existence; that was of course until it was found out Ford had faulty design and ignored the safety test findings, which resulted in an estimated 500 deaths. The cause of the deaths became one of the biggest ethical issues Ford Motors has dealt with: cutting cost vs. human life.

Generally, people cannot be killed, deceived, denied their freedom or otherwise violated simply to bring about a greater total amount of utility. It would have been ethically better if Ford consider the Rights of Persons as they were making decisions for the Pinto design. They must identify the basic obligations, values, and interests at stake, noting any conflicts that could be encountered by their potential customers. The action or rule that is to be taken must be analysed so that options and what rights are at stake will be clear. Next, the audience of the action must be determined, in this case, be the drivers and passengers that would be riding Pinto.

The Ford Pinto Xing Liu Jul-9-2015 When putting top priority on the pursuit of interest, people are inclined to make unethical decisions and take unethical actions, because they treat other people merely as a means to their goals by dehumanizing other people. They choose to ignore the fact that all human beings have names, families, soul (they are not property) and independent thinking as we do, deprive innocent people of freedom and well-being that these people deserve as human beings, and attach price tags to them for cost-benefit analysis. In Pinto case, Ford was accused of “callous indifference to human life” for not to spend on adding safety improvements to correct the faults they made in the competition with German and

The early history of Ford Motor Company illustrates one of Henry Ford’s most important talents an ability to identify and attract outstanding people. He hired a core of young hard working men who believed in his vision and would make Ford Motor Company into one of the most successful businesses in the world. The new company’s first car, called the Model A, was followed by a variety of improved models. In 1907 Ford’s four-cylinder, $600 Model N became the best-selling car in the country. But by this time Ford had a bigger vision: a better, cheaper “motorcar for the great multitude.” Working with a hand-picked group of employees he came up

I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Any business/service should never ever put a value on human life and not take consideration of a known deadly danger. Ford had an option as well as the solution to design the car in a way that prevented cars from exploding; however they refused to implement it.   They thought that it was cost effective not to fix dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people in spite of the fact that the only added cost was $ 11 per vehicle.

Ford produced the Pinto automobile from 1971 to 1980. Initially the car sold well, but a defect in the early models made Pintos prone to leaking

There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that

With the rise of globalization and the complex dynamics of the global business environments, organizations are tackling and forced to deal with large ethical issues on a daily basis. The ramifications for an organization that does not handle an ethical scenario efficiently and effectively could put the entire company and organization at dire risk. Organizations put their company brand and identity on the line with their everyday decisions and how they choose to operate themselves and their business. Many companies will do anything to keep their image or façade in good graces with the public and try to cover up or hide the mistakes with hope that their mishap or fault will never be exposed. The auto industry has had its fair share of