Pinto Case
Diamond Lee
Professional Ethics
Tues/Thru 9:30am
Critical Response #2
October 17, 2012
Case: The Ford Pinto
I believe that the cars should have been recalled when Lee Iacocca; president of Ford, learned that ruptured fuel tanks resulted from, “Stray sparks easily igniting any spilling gasoline and engulf the car in flame.” This case is about Ford Motor Company trying to compete foreign subcompact cars; Volkswagaons. Ford produced a new car to compete called the Ford Pinto. The normal production time is almost four years, but the production for the Pinto took half that time. Because of the short production time, many problems were found that the company would have to fix, which would cost them a lot of money. Since Ford did not fix the cars, many drivers died or were severely burned. Iacocca calculated the cost of deaths and lawsuits opposed to the amount of money it would cost to recall the cars and fix them, since the cost of labor outweighed the expected cost of lawsuits and deaths, he keep the cars on the markets, even thought they were a driving match waiting to be lite. Thompson explained three commonly made claims to acquit an advisor of moral responsibility, then gives his response, rejects them and gives a conclusion. The first claim says that the advisor is not morally responsible for what happened if they did not deal with the client or patient directly. Thompson’s responded to this claim by saying, this is not a good excuse because it is an extremely simple answer to a very important situation. His conclusion is that a person is morally responsible if he influenced the client of any kind.
The second claim states that one is not responsible if there is no evidence of a specific or directly intention. Thompson response to this by saying you can never really specify or prove someone’s intention because they might’ve had some previous unintended intentions. The conclusion is that to test this you would have to use the “Foreseeability
Professional Ethics
Tues/Thru 9:30am
Critical Response #2
October 17, 2012
Case: The Ford Pinto
I believe that the cars should have been recalled when Lee Iacocca; president of Ford, learned that ruptured fuel tanks resulted from, “Stray sparks easily igniting any spilling gasoline and engulf the car in flame.” This case is about Ford Motor Company trying to compete foreign subcompact cars; Volkswagaons. Ford produced a new car to compete called the Ford Pinto. The normal production time is almost four years, but the production for the Pinto took half that time. Because of the short production time, many problems were found that the company would have to fix, which would cost them a lot of money. Since Ford did not fix the cars, many drivers died or were severely burned. Iacocca calculated the cost of deaths and lawsuits opposed to the amount of money it would cost to recall the cars and fix them, since the cost of labor outweighed the expected cost of lawsuits and deaths, he keep the cars on the markets, even thought they were a driving match waiting to be lite. Thompson explained three commonly made claims to acquit an advisor of moral responsibility, then gives his response, rejects them and gives a conclusion. The first claim says that the advisor is not morally responsible for what happened if they did not deal with the client or patient directly. Thompson’s responded to this claim by saying, this is not a good excuse because it is an extremely simple answer to a very important situation. His conclusion is that a person is morally responsible if he influenced the client of any kind.
The second claim states that one is not responsible if there is no evidence of a specific or directly intention. Thompson response to this by saying you can never really specify or prove someone’s intention because they might’ve had some previous unintended intentions. The conclusion is that to test this you would have to use the “Foreseeability