Ford Pinto

Ford had Responsibility to Fix Pinto The Ford Pinto case study clearly presents an unethical and immoral practice that shows corporate greed for a positive bottom line is more important than the value of human life. Along with the issue of greed is the need to outdo the competition to be the best in the automobile industry. Together these issues cloud the judgment of Ford’s management. The use of cost-benefit analysis to determine if the flaw in Ford Pinto automobiles is worth the financial risk in comparison to the value of human life is unconscionable and indefensible. Because of this cost-benefit analysis, Ford made a costly decision not only in terms of money but also human life, pain and suffering for victims and their families, and to its own reputation. Ford chose to pay for possible lawsuits in lieu of recalling and repairing the Ford Pinto. Many deaths and catastrophic injuries were the result of Ford’s unethical decision that resulted in dozens of lawsuits and also led to the three reckless homicide indictments against Ford Motor Company. If Ford had the right business ethic and moral integrity to put consumer safety first, instead of profit and competition, there would have been no loss of life or financial suffering because there would not have been lawsuits. Dilemma Solution The solution to the dilemma relative to the Ford Pinto case is that the company should have taken appropriate action to ensure that the car was safe to operate. Lee Iacocca, along with Ford engineers, had an ethical and moral responsibility to ascertain the vehicle was safe to operate before rolling them off the factory floor (Birsch, 2001-2006). The drive to make a profit overshadowed Ford’s concern for consumer safety. The company should have taken the initiative to make the appropriate safety alterations before allowing the car to go on the market. Knowing that the car was unsafe for public highway use left the Ford Motor Company open to civil

References: Birsch, D. (2001-2006). Ford Pinto Case. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. De George, R. (2005). Business Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reed, C. (1995). The Period Eye. Art Journal , 91. Trevino, L., & Nelson, K. (2006). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right Trumbull, M. (2010, May 20). Toyota recall: Automaker focused more on damage control than fixes? Retrieved from The Christian Science Monitor: