Risk Analysis (Pinto Case)
Risk Analysis (Pinto Case)
Three social issues that are in this case are that one, social issue in this case was Ford claimed the reason for the recall of the 1.9 million Ford Pintos was not for safety but for “reputational” reasons. This is a social issue because, after all the evidence was piled up on their company for being unsafe and hazardous, they couldn’t just admit they made a mistake and recall the vehicles to make them safer. No, they had to use the reputation card to help their company’s image in the long run so they wouldn’t lose profit. In this issue, there is no utilitarianism because there mindset in making this decision isn’t for the right reasons. There not doing it to intentionally increase the safety of everybody. One version, rule-utilitarianism, considers that, “a rule or code of behavior is morally right if, by its application, the consequences are more favorable that unfavorable to everyone.” They weren’t being moral when they made this decision. The citizens and people had nothing to do with the recall. It was their own self-pity and arrogance. Another social issue in this case is that in June of 1978, Ford knew that its fuel tank did not meet Federal Safety Standards, yet they didn’t do anything to warn the owners of this. It’s a fact that if people were warned of this issue, thousands and thousands of people wouldn’t want to buy the Ford Pinto. Being that this was a social issue, Ford was all about making a profit and hid crucial information for the public. The third of many social issues in this case are that when Ford was being prosecuted in the courtroom, they defended themselves against negligence by claiming its car was comparable to other subcompacts at that time. Three technical issues that are in this case are, one, when James Neal was giving his testimony, he stated that because the car that got hit by the van wasn’t moving and gas was leaking from the car due to the lady forgetting to put the gas cap back on,
Three social issues that are in this case are that one, social issue in this case was Ford claimed the reason for the recall of the 1.9 million Ford Pintos was not for safety but for “reputational” reasons. This is a social issue because, after all the evidence was piled up on their company for being unsafe and hazardous, they couldn’t just admit they made a mistake and recall the vehicles to make them safer. No, they had to use the reputation card to help their company’s image in the long run so they wouldn’t lose profit. In this issue, there is no utilitarianism because there mindset in making this decision isn’t for the right reasons. There not doing it to intentionally increase the safety of everybody. One version, rule-utilitarianism, considers that, “a rule or code of behavior is morally right if, by its application, the consequences are more favorable that unfavorable to everyone.” They weren’t being moral when they made this decision. The citizens and people had nothing to do with the recall. It was their own self-pity and arrogance. Another social issue in this case is that in June of 1978, Ford knew that its fuel tank did not meet Federal Safety Standards, yet they didn’t do anything to warn the owners of this. It’s a fact that if people were warned of this issue, thousands and thousands of people wouldn’t want to buy the Ford Pinto. Being that this was a social issue, Ford was all about making a profit and hid crucial information for the public. The third of many social issues in this case are that when Ford was being prosecuted in the courtroom, they defended themselves against negligence by claiming its car was comparable to other subcompacts at that time. Three technical issues that are in this case are, one, when James Neal was giving his testimony, he stated that because the car that got hit by the van wasn’t moving and gas was leaking from the car due to the lady forgetting to put the gas cap back on,