Ford Pinto
Ford Pinto Case
Ford Pinto Case
If we were involved in the Ford Pinto dilemma we would have used Deontological Ethical reasoning to decide whether or not to disclose the danger that the Pinto posed and/or use that reasoning to determine whether or not to install the part(s) that would make the Ford Pinto safer. Our decision would be to do what is morally right and avoid doing what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences. True enough Ford was not obligated by government regulation or any law, to disclose the potential hazards of the Ford Pinto however; at the least they should have presented the option of purchasing the part to make the care safer - an option we would have made available to the customer.
It is apparent Ford use the Utilitarian Ethical approach to come to their decision – choosing to do what produced the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people; a subcompact car that cost $2,000 and weighing no more than 2,000 pounds (Ford & Newton, 2008, p. 296), sold to 11 million customers as opposed to the only 180 people who lost their lives! Valuing a human life at $200,000 against a part that if individually purchased cost $11, Ford felt that it was less expensive to settle fatality claims at $200,000 per life – so they thought, until jury’s started awarding multi-million settlements – so much for their cost-benefit analysis.
When a person comes to a conclusion on a decision, many times there are influences from outside sources that impact the choices made. In this case it is the lack of caring about human life, death and suffering. If you fall into that category, society looks upon you with the utmost contempt.
People have generally accepted that death is a natural part of the human cycle. The problem is that people usually come to easier terms with death when people die of “natural causes” and have lived a long and fulfilling life. Unfortunately, the Ford motor company not only accepted that death was something we’d
Ford Pinto Case
If we were involved in the Ford Pinto dilemma we would have used Deontological Ethical reasoning to decide whether or not to disclose the danger that the Pinto posed and/or use that reasoning to determine whether or not to install the part(s) that would make the Ford Pinto safer. Our decision would be to do what is morally right and avoid doing what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences. True enough Ford was not obligated by government regulation or any law, to disclose the potential hazards of the Ford Pinto however; at the least they should have presented the option of purchasing the part to make the care safer - an option we would have made available to the customer.
It is apparent Ford use the Utilitarian Ethical approach to come to their decision – choosing to do what produced the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people; a subcompact car that cost $2,000 and weighing no more than 2,000 pounds (Ford & Newton, 2008, p. 296), sold to 11 million customers as opposed to the only 180 people who lost their lives! Valuing a human life at $200,000 against a part that if individually purchased cost $11, Ford felt that it was less expensive to settle fatality claims at $200,000 per life – so they thought, until jury’s started awarding multi-million settlements – so much for their cost-benefit analysis.
When a person comes to a conclusion on a decision, many times there are influences from outside sources that impact the choices made. In this case it is the lack of caring about human life, death and suffering. If you fall into that category, society looks upon you with the utmost contempt.
People have generally accepted that death is a natural part of the human cycle. The problem is that people usually come to easier terms with death when people die of “natural causes” and have lived a long and fulfilling life. Unfortunately, the Ford motor company not only accepted that death was something we’d