Pirozzoli Ethics HU432 Exam 1
GM Ignition Case Ethical Evaluation
Joe Pirozzoli
General Studies
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Author Note
Joe Pirozzoli, General Studies, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Prepared for HU 432 Ethics, Professor Paul Hudec and submitted 4/9/2015.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to:
E-mail: pirozzolij@msoe.edu Abstract
The contents of this paper will analyze the GM ignition case using several concepts taught in ethics. This will include a background of the issue as well as a detailed evaluation of the decision by GM from the utilitarianism and Kantian perspective. This will show that GM’s decision was morally wrong as well as prove that GM should be held morally responsible for their actions. Keywords: utilitarianism, Kantian theory, morally responsible
Table of Contents
Introduction 4 Figure 1 4
Relevant Background Information 5
Figure 2 6
Ethical Evaluation 7
Utilitarianism 7
Kantian Ethical Theory 8
Moral Responsibility 10
Conclusion 11
Glossary 13
References 14
Introduction
General Motors (GM) is one of the oldest and largest car manufactures in the United States. As early as 2001, the company began to notice issues with an ignition switch that was to be used in many car models. The problem with this switch was that a driver could “inadvertently knock them to ‘off’ or ‘accessory’ mode while driving” (Plumer, 2014). If this happened, “the engine would shut off and cars would lose their power steering and power brakes” as well as the airbags “wouldn’t inflate in the event of a crash” (Plumer, 2014). Allowing this problem to not be fixed led to many crashes and fatalities across the United States. After several years this eventually led to the recall of millions of cars and thousands of lawsuits for GM. This is an ethical issue because GM was knowledgeable of the problem and made a decision to ignore it which led to the deaths and injuries of many innocent people. In order to evaluate this ethical situation we will
Joe Pirozzoli
General Studies
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Author Note
Joe Pirozzoli, General Studies, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Prepared for HU 432 Ethics, Professor Paul Hudec and submitted 4/9/2015.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to:
E-mail: pirozzolij@msoe.edu Abstract
The contents of this paper will analyze the GM ignition case using several concepts taught in ethics. This will include a background of the issue as well as a detailed evaluation of the decision by GM from the utilitarianism and Kantian perspective. This will show that GM’s decision was morally wrong as well as prove that GM should be held morally responsible for their actions. Keywords: utilitarianism, Kantian theory, morally responsible
Table of Contents
Introduction 4 Figure 1 4
Relevant Background Information 5
Figure 2 6
Ethical Evaluation 7
Utilitarianism 7
Kantian Ethical Theory 8
Moral Responsibility 10
Conclusion 11
Glossary 13
References 14
Introduction
General Motors (GM) is one of the oldest and largest car manufactures in the United States. As early as 2001, the company began to notice issues with an ignition switch that was to be used in many car models. The problem with this switch was that a driver could “inadvertently knock them to ‘off’ or ‘accessory’ mode while driving” (Plumer, 2014). If this happened, “the engine would shut off and cars would lose their power steering and power brakes” as well as the airbags “wouldn’t inflate in the event of a crash” (Plumer, 2014). Allowing this problem to not be fixed led to many crashes and fatalities across the United States. After several years this eventually led to the recall of millions of cars and thousands of lawsuits for GM. This is an ethical issue because GM was knowledgeable of the problem and made a decision to ignore it which led to the deaths and injuries of many innocent people. In order to evaluate this ethical situation we will
References: Basu, Tanya. (2014). Timeline: A History of GM’s Ignition Switch Defect. NPR. Retrieved April 3, 2015 from http://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/297158876/timeline-a-history-of-gms- Bruce, Chris. (2015). GM Ignition Switch Death Tolls Continue to Rise. Autoblog. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/24/gm-ignition-switch-death-toll- Bunkley, Nick. (2014). Recall Storm Engulfs GM. Automotive News. Retrieved April 3, 2015 from http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CA/20140317/OEM11/ Cooper, Lance. (2014). GM Chose Not to Implement a Fix for Ignition Problem. GM Recall. Retrieved April 3, 2015 from http://media4.s- Gara, Tom. (2014). Emails Show Cost to GM of a Better Ignition Switch: 90 Cents. The Wall Street Journal Johnson, Robert. (2008). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 8, 2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp Klayman, Ben. (2014). Deaths Linked To GM Ignition-Switch Defect Rise to 23. Reuters. Retrieved April 3, 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/29/us-gm-recall- Plumer, Brad. (2014). GM’s Faulty Ignition Switches. Vox. Retrieved April, 3, 2015 from http://www.vox.com/cards/gm-car-recall/why-is-gm-recalling-so-many-cars. Timmons, Mark. (2012). Conduct and Character (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Velasquez, Manuel