Applying Kant's Theory To The Ford Pinto Case

Immanuel Kant would have would have certainly believed that Ford acted wrongly by not upgrading the integrity of the Pinto’s fuel system after learning about the danger of explosions in low-speed rear end collisions. Kantian deontology asserts that “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.” (Kant 1). Although some human qualities are intrinsically valuable, or good for their own sake, Kant believes that these actions can become bad if the intention of the user is questionable. This intention is what ultimately determines the morality of an action, meaning “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition.” (Kant 2). These “virtue of volitions” are referred to by Kant as maxims, or fundamental principles for conduct and decision making. Kant believes that in order for a maxim to be morally valid, it must be able to be universally applied to situations
Ford was primarily motivated by profit and market share, evidenced by their decision to not recall the car and choice to pay lawsuits instead of fixing the gas tank issue. Ford completely disregarded their responsibility to produce a safe product by foregoing the universal safety standards in order to increase profit – this action is not intrinsically valuable as it acts for the good of the company. If this maxim of foregoing car safety in order to increase profit was applied universally, there would be obvious contradiction from the employees of Ford who drove a pinto and would not agree to this rule. This contradiction implies that the maxim to forego safety standards in the interest of profit is not morally valid, and Ford using this maxim to make the decision to not recall the cars is morally