They are competitors with Volkswagen and Japanese imports. In 1971, Pinto, a subcompact type vehicle is introduced in the means to compete with the stated car brands. Pinto unexpectedly received many inquiries regarding its safety given that it actually met several safety standards. These inquiries are due to the fact that they design it in a way it would have less than 2000 pounds in weight and cost not more than 2000 dollars. The cost and the weight had definitely attracted people’s doubt in its safety. Not long after that, users of Pinto were involved in many cases of casualties, injuries and even fatal. Pinto’s major design flaw was said to be its fuel tank prone to rupturing with moderate-speed rear-end collision. Under Utilitarian Thinking, …show more content…
They could miss out several tiny details as they were designing the vehicle, blinded by their goal to release the vehicle in their planned time-frame that they ended up producing one that is not safe enough as long as it meets the safety standard. In other words, prior to its release, Pinto was not thoroughly tested and inspected. That is why cost-benefit analysis is also known as risk–benefit analysis as it contains a lot of risks if used in engineering perspective that design a vehicle or machine or anything similar and could cost people’s …show more content…
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. Then the seriousness of the rights infringement must be evaluated. This way the tier level of rights and the number of violations involved will be coherent. Lastly, Ford can come to decision that seems more reasonable to give an outcome with least serious rights infringements. If we compare the rights for person approach and the utilitarian one, it is almost obvious that the earlier is better and more ethically professional. This approach focuses a little bit more than just benefits and costs. It has more content to be determined and analysed to help making a decision that would grant people the rights they deserve protect them from harm. Harm can be defined as an invasion of a person’s well-being. Engineers have techniques
Ford would rather take the cost of the Pinto’s design error to a court decision than admit it cost a certain amount of compensation for injuries or deaths. “In Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4th Dist. 1981) [1], the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reviewed Ford's conduct in painstaking detail, and upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford.” Each incident had a consequence, they were considering the cost of the company in choosing the cheap way out. Dell chose goodwill because of no major damages done, but put the majority blame on Sony. Ford is willing to take the cost of lawsuits as opposed to negotiating the value because it sets a standard payment amount. Ford is admitting a no
Personally I don’t think what Dennis Gioia did was wrong in the dealing with the Pinto case. All he did was followed the “script” that was written for him by the Ford Corporation. As with all workplaces, there are rules or “script” that you have to follow when you agreed to enter the company. So it wasn’t his fault but the fault of Ford, whom could have prevented the Pinto case. Ford pretty much set up Gioia to fail from day one when they put a weight and monetary limit on the pinto and to fast track the production. Instead of the regular time line of about 43 months for a vehicle from a conceptual stage to go into production, “the pinto was brought from inception to production in the record time of approximately 25 months”. Without the 17
After analyzing the cause of the crash, experts identified that there were significant design deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for
Describe how a human rights based approach supports an individual to make decisions and take risks
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.
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.
Company in the early 1970s when the company decided not to recall the Pinto despite dangerous
You have to consider the Ford Motor Company’s reputation after they made the decision to not recall the Ford Pinto to
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
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.
Ford convinced NHTSA that cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate for determining not to change the fuel tank. The costs were eleven dollars per fuel tank to change which ended up equaling 137.5 million dollars. This number is very large and much bigger than the benefit if they would have not changed it, which was 49.5 million dollars.
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.
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).
Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty
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.