Ford Pinto Case
FORD PINTO CASE
The Ford management has chosen to be unethical and morally unworthy to be trusted with the lives of its customers. Can you just imagine the number of individuals riding every day in the cars that they produced, who are unaware that they could be in an injury any moment? Ford management has chosen not to follow the safety guidelines and standards in producing such products because at that time, the government is still not that strict in implementing such rules. And because of their eagerness to meet the production schedule, they have reduced the time allotted for the rear-end impact testing just to introduce such product on the market on time. They disregarded their customer’s safety and the possibility of injury or death just for the sake of small profit or share in the market. Ford with its utilitarian perspective, which the decision not to recall such products or even warn its customers, served the greater amount of good to those who are affected, hose who will benefit from the profit it will get. It has also regarded its decision as to having no instinctive value even when it is showing obvious consequences. The cost-benefit analysis that was used by Ford was also to blame. The cost amounting to $137M versus the $49.5M estimated for the cost of injuries, deaths, and car damages has been the deciding factor for Ford not to implement the design changes that would have made the cars safer. Ford used the formula so as not to legally implement the changes. However, just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. It is clearly unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would be too costly to prevent it. Ford had different options in its hand to prevent, minimize, and warn the customers of potential risks and harm associated with the cars they have produced. But despite these options, Ford has chosen not to mention such possible risks or death for its customers. The Ford Pinto case has
The Ford management has chosen to be unethical and morally unworthy to be trusted with the lives of its customers. Can you just imagine the number of individuals riding every day in the cars that they produced, who are unaware that they could be in an injury any moment? Ford management has chosen not to follow the safety guidelines and standards in producing such products because at that time, the government is still not that strict in implementing such rules. And because of their eagerness to meet the production schedule, they have reduced the time allotted for the rear-end impact testing just to introduce such product on the market on time. They disregarded their customer’s safety and the possibility of injury or death just for the sake of small profit or share in the market. Ford with its utilitarian perspective, which the decision not to recall such products or even warn its customers, served the greater amount of good to those who are affected, hose who will benefit from the profit it will get. It has also regarded its decision as to having no instinctive value even when it is showing obvious consequences. The cost-benefit analysis that was used by Ford was also to blame. The cost amounting to $137M versus the $49.5M estimated for the cost of injuries, deaths, and car damages has been the deciding factor for Ford not to implement the design changes that would have made the cars safer. Ford used the formula so as not to legally implement the changes. However, just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. It is clearly unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would be too costly to prevent it. Ford had different options in its hand to prevent, minimize, and warn the customers of potential risks and harm associated with the cars they have produced. But despite these options, Ford has chosen not to mention such possible risks or death for its customers. The Ford Pinto case has