Read The Ford Pinto (Chapter 2 (1)
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
SUNY Empire State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3010
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
6
Uploaded by BrigadierIronPelican6338
Read "The Ford Pinto (Chapter 2, Case 2.2)" and answer both #3 and #9 of the “Discussion Questions”.
Question 3 Utilitarians would say that jeopardizing motorists does not by itself make Ford’s action morally objectionable. The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. Do you think Ford did this? The theory of Utilitarianism is of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm. Unitarianism when related to making social, economic, or political decisions adheres to the utilitarian philosophy to aim for the betterment of society. This case shows that Ford made the production of automobiles without regard to the safety of the customer. While Ford is a business and profits are of importance it should ensure the safety of the product hence the safety of the people is ensured who allow them to be profitable by buying their product.
Despite this as per Utilitarianism Ford jeopardizing motorist does not make their actions morally questionable. Utilitarian thinking as far as morality plays in this scenario is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the individual impacted parties despite Fords knowledge, they were putting people in jeopardy continuing with their production timeline despite knowing the Pinto presented a serious fire hazard when hit from behind. When evaluating whether Ford gave equal interest to each affected party, I do not believe that this should be the only morally relevant issue because if they had thought about the affected parties-at that time potentially affected- from the time of the production of the car there would not have been any need to look at whether morally all affected parties were treated equally. The studies they did showed that the tank had an issue that could be dangerous, yet they continued to produce the Pinto as is choosing profitability over safety making a moral decision that under Kant’s categorical imperative should not have happened to begin with. Assessing however based on the Utilitarian concept of looking at what Ford did as far as equal consideration to those impacted, I would have to say an unequivocal no. The case tells us that the figures they accepted accountability for between 1971 and 1978 was 23 where critics say
it was closer to 500. This shows from the onset the lack of accountability from Ford just from a statistical standpoint much less giving equal consideration. They were also obligated by law to change the tanks, not voluntarily. Finally, for all the lawsuits brought against them they were all settled differently with Ford even getting a reduction in the punitive damages that they were supposed to pay. In the Judy Ulrich case where three were burnt to death the Ford Motor company was not held liable at all. 9. Should Ford have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case? I did a lot of reading and from various sources which gave contradictory answers. Three people perished in a car fire which brought Ford into the spotlight. The safety of the Pinto’s gas tank was deemed as the catalyst for the deaths.
Ironically, this happened one month after a recall had been issued. Ford was aware before the car was made available of the danger involved but continued to produce and make available the car, putting their bottom line ahead of anything else.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
From a Utilitarian perspective the best approach would have been for Ford to acknowledge the flaw and recall the cars with expediency to make the possible outcome less critical than it became. It would have saved lives, injuries, pain, and suffering and ensured that according to the Utilitarian train of thought best efforts were made. It is morally wrong as it failed to do the above as soon as it realized the calamities. Too little too late. According to Kant’s categorical imperative which, “implies that we need to act per an ethical principle that we wish to be a universal law. The main moral principle of Kant's ethical theory is that we should always act out of a sense of duty and respect for the humanity of others (
O'Neill, 2013)
.” Keeping this in mind regarding Ford and the Ulrich case, a Kantarian would have not even allowed the car to be produced, knowing the issues that were involved never placing corporate profit and greed over human safety. While the Kantarian school of thought has its own limitations I feel in the case of the Pinto the car would never have been produced knowing the morality behind the ethical decision to make which would have been perfecting it before selling it.
We are all aware that Ford was not found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case, but they should have been held responsible as if they had not allowed the car to be produced knowing the issue with unsafe fuel tank. Whether it was Kant’s categorical imperative which would have prevented the production of something unsafe or the Utilitarian premise of recognizing the issue and fixing faster there should have been some liability for Ford for the Ulrich case. Today cases involving human health and safety, corporations and their executives could be required to submit not only to the scrutiny and sanctions of traditional federal agencies, but to state criminal courts as well. References: Shaw, William H.; Barry, Vincent. Moral Issues in Business (p. 86). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.
O'Neill, O. (2013). Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press. Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp#:~:text=Utilitariani
sm%20is%20a%20theory%20of,of%20society%20as%20a%20whole
. https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-does-
business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help