The Ford Pinto

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).

You have to consider the Ford Motor Company’s reputation after they made the decision to not recall the Ford Pinto to

7. Would it have made a moral difference if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to Ford’s customer? Could a rational customer have chosen to save a few dollars and risk having the more dangerous gas tank? What if Ford had told potential customers about its decision?

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.

There are many different cases where people have been critically injured or have died from burn-related injuries from the ruptured the Pino gas tank. This case study specifically discusses the 1978 untimely deaths of Lynn Marie Ulrich, Dana Ulrich, and Judy Ann. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. It was the death of these teenagers that lead brought the controversy of the Ford Pinto’s faulty gas tank placement to a climax resulting in criminal homicide charges for the automaker. Ford’s CEO Henry Ford II and Ford’s new president Lee Iacocca were responsible for the launch of the Ford Pinto. To stay ahead of the growing competition, The Pinto was not to weigh over 2,000 pounds and not costs not to exceed $2,000. Ford officials knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire issue when struck from the rear, but were desperate to expedite the vehicle’s release, the Pintos timing was set just under 25 months. Tooling has already been kicked off, so when crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank, it was too late for any design modifications. The tooling was well underway. Therefore, Ford’s president decided it would be too costly to make changes in the Pinto’s gas tank location pushing ahead with the original design which went unchanged for six years. Any changes to the low-cost Ford Pinto would result in an increased price, thus possibly making it less desirable by small car buyers. Iacocca understood that people shopping for compact cars were watching every dollar, One Ford engineer explained, “the process of elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model”.

There are a few concerns about harmful behavior of the FMC that should be discussed. A behavior is harmful when it wrongfully sets back the interest of others and has a high risk of harm. Obviously, the gravity of harm in this case is very high being that it is life threatening. Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck. Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.

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.

On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Today, the debate continues regarding whether or not The Ford Motor Company was responsible for this case and many other cases involving the Pinto bursting into flames resulting in disfigurement or death.

For example, the automobile industry over the past several years has worked to block legislation that would impose criminal punishments on knowing and willful violation of the federal auto safety laws. Now, if an auto company is caught violating the law, only a civil fine is imposed. In may of 1968, the Ford Motor Company decided to introduce a subcompact car and produce it domestically. The automobile was designed and developed on a tight schedule and as a result, cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto started to rise due to a defective fuel system design. Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the 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. Based on the numbers, the cost would have been $137 million in order to implement the new design versus $49.5 million they would have to pay on the deaths, injuries, and car damages. Thus, Ford felt justified and legally chose not to make the design change in which would make the Pinto safer. However, just because it was legal does not necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is difficult to understand how a price can be put on saving a human

Utilitarian Case Study In the business world, sometimes it is difficult for high corporate officials to pick decisions with both consumer safety and profit in mind. Sometimes business, however, will choose to overlook safety hazards in order to avoid low profits and negative reputation. To a utilitarian, the best option would be the choice that has the highest net balance of happiness over unhappiness. In the case of “Stirling Bridge’s Unloading of Surplus Tools” (Beauchamp 199-203), utilitarians would view the contract Sterling Bridge Tool and Machinery Company wrote up as wrong.

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.

ANS: The Pinto case raise the moral issues of what is the dollar value of the human life. That the businesses should not be putting a value on human life and disregard a known deadly danger. In order to perform a risk/benefit analysis, all costs and benefits must be expressed in some common measure. This measure is typically in dollars, as the Ford Motor Company used in its analysis. This can prove difficult for things that are not commonly bought and sold on the open market. Therefore, totell someone that there is a certain price for their life is a preposterous notion. There are numerous things which individuals consider priceless. Ford thought they could get away

This paper explores several published articles and an overview of the court cases, that bring up the question of ethics and the responsibilities of Ford and the government in the Pinto gas-tank issues of the 1970’s. This paper is intended to ask questions of ethics regarding manufacturers responsibilities when there might be a potential safety hazard, what the governmental duties might be in helping to keep the public safe, and whether or not they should be held responsible for not taking measureable steps in protecting the public. Also highlighted is what Ford did and didn’t do when the problem of the gas-tank explosions happened prior to their launch as well as what steps were taken as accidents started to occur and how a newer practice of cost-benefit analysis was used to help them make their controversial decisions to sell this product to the public.

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 did not approach the question of redesigning the gas tank to make the car safer versus waiting another year allowing the foreign market to dominate subcompact vehicles. Their goal was only to maximize profits. They did not into account the interests of their share holders and when they did come into consideration, they were analyzed against profits. One has nothing to do with the other. Their goal should not have been a race to make the most affordable subcompact car. Their focus should have been to make a subcompact car that was not only most affordable but also the safest subcompact. They were aware of the dangers associated with the rush production. It would have made a difference if the $11 savings had been passed on to the customers because they would've kept their reputation and integrity in tact and possibly gain customers who were not considering the vehicle. Any rational customer would not have chosen to save $11 to drive a car at the risk of dying. It is never appropriate to knowingly jeopardize people's lives. That is a criminal act. Their actions were socially irresponsible, ethically and morally wrong. They did not consider their own reputation nor did they consider that they represented America in the industry.