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 …show more content…
Iacocca’s ultimate goal was to maximize profit with dominance in the compact car market. However, as Semon Knudsen, then-president of Ford, proposed that Ford “could concentrate on the more profitable medium and large models,” the ambition to win in the compact car market is completely unnecessary. It is reasonable to believe that Iacocca’s previous success in the participation in the design of several successful Ford automobiles, including most notably the Mustang, the Lincoln Continental Mark III, and several other models in the 1960s, and the quickly moving up through the ranks have fostered his ambitions, arrogance and overconfidence, leading to his lack of system 2 thinking, which could have helped him regulate emotions and impulses so that deeper thinking and ethical reasoning drives his judgment instead of the other way …show more content…
After the infamous cost/benefit analysis, they decided to sacrifice other’s well-being to maximize profits. But there were several miscalculations. Ford not only underestimated the death toll and injuries, but also overestimated the costs of adding safety improvements by including all Ford vehicles. In fact, the number of deaths the Pinto was responsible for is closer to 500, according to its critics, rather than 23, at which Ford put. The court cases nationwide have also increased the costs to Ford. If Ford added the safety shield in the production page, the only loss would be a portion of the expected profits. It is possible for Ford to dominate the compact car market and customers get what they want. However, with the cost/benefit analysis, Ford set them into the worst scenario that no one benefits from the action of not modifying the duel tank: Ford suffered from both financial and reputational loss, with the increased costs on installing the safety shields and lawsuits against the company, potential loss of future sales, and the decreased shareholder’s value; customers who involved in the accidents suffered both physically and emotionally with the loss of life and property; other customers decreased trust in the brand; Iacocca was fired by Henry Ford
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
It is difficult to evaluate Mr. Gioia’s decision in the Pinto fire cases because of how he presents himself in his book. He reminds me of kids who are trying to find their identity. I interpret the way he wrote his book as a way to separate himself from one of the horrendous practice in the automotive industries, because he plays no part in allowing the issue to continue. I don’t believe he actually admit that he made a mistake. This is great beginning of this paper.
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
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.
It is critical to mention the importance of the Mother Jones article “Pinto Madness” from 1977, which details how Ford knew about the Ford Pinto’s fault and still sold the vehicle to its customers. Written by Mark Dowie, general manager of Mother Jones business operations at the time, the article goes into detail about the extensive investigation that Mother Jones did on the dangers created by the design of the Pinto’s gas tank. The article also gives us glimpse of the Pinto’s “green book”, which listed the “3” product objectives in creating the vehicle.
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
In the late 1960's there was strong competition from VW and several Japanese companies in the small car market. Due to this competition Ford hurried the design of their small car, the Pinto, to market. Since the car was rushed into market and the specifications for the car were that it weigh under 2000 pounds and cost less than $2000, safety was not a major concern in the design of the pinto.1 In
Owning an American car was a great pride in the first half of the 19th century but the Ford Pinto changed it all. The Ford Pinto catalyzed a new wave of ethical and civic thought for companies across the country. This vehicle had a major flaw in its design. There were problems with the early models because they had leaky fuel tanks that would catch on fire after low-speed rear-end collisions. The Pinto's gas tank was right behind a cars rear axle and if the car got into a rear-end collision that was 28 miles per hour, or more, the rear end of the car would get crushed.
There were three basic types of the Pinto; the wagon, sedan, and runabout which ranged from 170.8 inches to 180.6 inches in length, 50.6 inches to 52.1 inches in height, and 69.4 inches to 69.7 inches in width( ). The PInto was a simple car but had one minor flaw in its design; the fuel tank. The Fuel tank that was installed on the Ford Pinto was arguably the most dangerous fuel tank system known to man( ). The reason it's the most dangerous fuel system is because it's vulnerable to rear end collisions. Once a collision has happened the fuel tanks filler neck on the tank would tear off and pour gasoline on the ground( ).
The Ford pinto lasted from the 1960’s to the late 1970s and was highly controversial. This poorly made automobile came from a production race between the USA and Japan, where the United States promised an affordable, fuel efficient, and reliable car. Because of the hasty production, it left Ford with a flawed, dangerous, and untested product. The outrage over the obvious safety flaws of the Ford Pinto caused leaders to call upon their values, mission statement, and ethics. The outcome and actions taken in this case left consumers with a loss of confidence and respect for the Ford motor company and its leaders.
Dennis Gioia had started as an advocate for human rights and protection, prior to his appointment to the position at Ford Motor Company. He was aware of the design defects with the Pinto, however, he succumbed to the corporate rhetoric of buyer risk and consumer demand as rational for the decision to keep the Pinto on the market.
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.
Moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises included producing dangerous products which are not safe to use it without informing the dangerous of the products to the public. In addition, lobbying the NHTSA to delay the safety measure of the products is also one of the moral issues that Ford Pinto case raises.
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.