2830 24R SE Answer Key
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Winnipeg *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2331
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ChefGorillaPerson510
ANSWER KEY PHIL 2830 A01 24R Business Ethics: Short Essay Product liability: The Ford Pinto Case – Mark Dowie
In the reading by Mark Dowie, he looks at the classic case of what went wrong with the Ford Pinto. In this particularly awful case of risk calculation gone wrong, Dowie considers Ford’s cost-benefit analysis to be problematic, but subsequent critics of Ford assert that the fundamental moral mistake made by Ford is that they placed a dollar value on human life. The idea that this was clearly a moral mistake requires some elaboration, after all insurers place dollar values on human lives all the time – otherwise they would go out of business.
Explain why the fundamental moral mistake made by Ford is that they placed a dollar value on human life. Provide three arguments in support of the conclusion that it is not morally permissible to assign a dollar value to human life. The first argument must be based on reasons with a normative ethical principle derived from Utilitarianism. The second argument must be based on reasons with a normative ethical principle derived from Kantian Ethics. The third argument must be based on reasons with a normative ethical principle derived from Virtue Ethics. Each argument should be the most plausible one that you can generate from the corresponding normative ethical theory. Of those three arguments which one provides the best evidential support for the assertion that it is not morally permissible to assign a dollar value to human life? Provide an argument in support of your choice.
The fundamental moral issue in this case is Ford’s putting a financial value on human life, that is
placing a dollar value on human life.
The moral mistake that is often attributed to Ford’s actions in the “Pinto” case is that the decision
not to recall the Pinto was based on a cost-benefit analysis (i.e. a utilitarian calculation.) Claim is
even made that Ford was somewhat deceptive in this endeavour. However, essential to such an analysis is to be able to quantify costs and benefits. So, in order to do their cost-benefit analysis Ford had to place a financial value on human life. This is why placing a value on human life is considered the fundamental moral mistake that Ford made.
While this may be done by the insurance industry (with justification), critics maintain that Ford’s
evaluation of human life was not done in a similar fashion. In the case of insurers putting a value on human life, it is a case where the human so valued is aware of such a calculation as it involves
a product – life insurance – that they are intending to purchase. The important point here is that the consumer of life insurance consents to a monetary value being placed on their life. This ensures that the rational autonomous agency of the consumer is respected. This sort of transparency is not evident in the Ford Pinto case.
The Ford Pinto case is also more complex in the sense that safety issues were decided upon based on this evaluation of human life. Critics maintain that safety issues should involve concern
for persons as individuals with an intrinsic worth that is priceless. A clear distinction must then be made between Ford’s actions and those of insurers.
Structurally, a Kantian Deontological argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Premise
- Assigning a dollar value to human life does not respect the rational autonomy of all persons concerned. Developing what rational autonomous agency, in this case, amounted to is important. To distinguish what insurers do from what Ford did commentators refer to the informed consent of an insurance client.
Or,
Premise
- assigning a dollar value to human life treats people as a means to an end, as opposed to an end in themselves. This point is often developed by showing that the “ends” of Ford in this case are
arrived at through their cost-benefit analysis. Or, Premise
- to assign a dollar value to human life would mean we were following a principle that would not satisfy the Categorical Imperative. Developing this point may be more difficult to articulate as you must first indicate the principle, or maxim, that Ford was following. It is not clear that their actions can be understood as following an easily distinguishable single maxim. Therefore
, assigning a dollar value to human life is not morally permissible. Structurally, a Virtue Ethics argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Premise - Assigning a dollar value to human life requires a character trait that is not a virtue. Essential to this claim is to clearly articulate the virtue in question. Being clear on what the virtue is and where it comes form is important. Considering the person making Ford’s decision, is their virtue in question derived from their position as an employee of Ford, or is it derived from their profession, as say, an engineer, or the auto-making industry itself. Indeed, why not from their society at large. A correlated question would be what role model might they be appealing to in this case. Or Premise
- assigning a dollar value to human life corrupts the virtuous character of all persons considered.
Arguably this point could only be expressed once we know the virtue in the first place.
Therefore
, assigning a dollar value to human life is not morally permissible.
Structurally, a Utilitarian argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Assigning a dollar value to human life would produce more unhappiness than happiness for
all persons affected by doing that. As with any Utilitarian argument you should be prepared to take a pretty broad view as to what contributes to happiness in this case. The health and safety of consumers would have to be an essential part of that understanding of happiness. It would also be relevant for the consequences to be assessed in the short, and long, term.
Assessments of the harms to Ford’s reputation often lead to the evaluation and comparison of the long and short term consequences.
Therefore, assigning a dollar value to human life is not morally permissible.
In your assessment concerning which argument provides the best evidential support, I am looking for an argument for why one is better than the other two. Briefly, I’ll need to see reasons that are more than a statement of preference for one over the others. The comparative assessment that results in your concluding argument must be developed in this essay. It is one thing to speak about the positive attributes of the argument you ultimately support. However, you must offer some comparative criteria by which to distinguish that argument from the other two arguments. The other two arguments/positions certainly have positive points as well. The question to ask is - why are those positive points not as compelling as the positive points you brought out for the argument you supported?
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