Comm 101

After analyzing the cause of the crash, experts identified that there were significant design deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for

There are a few concerns about harmful behavior of the FMC that should be discussed. A behavior is harmful when it wrongfully sets back the interest of others and has a high risk of harm. Obviously, the gravity of harm in this case is very high being that it is life threatening. Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck. Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

A similar ethical concept to Utilitarianism is that of Rawl’s Theory of Justice. Within his theories he states that for something to be both ethical and just it must not infringe on the basic rights and liberties of a person, nor give advantage to any one group but to all with positions and offers available to all equally. In reference to the Ford Pinto, the second statement is upheld. The Pinto being a relatively cheap car which was often a starter vehicle, and as long as a person had the funds and a driver’s license, they could own the vehicle. So the design process general design itself was both fair and ethical to Rawls when regarding the second of his two theories of justice. The first theory can be up to interpretation. The only rights or liberties that might have been infringed upon are those of safety

The CBA itself did not force Ford to act unethically, their greed and their sole priority to avoid extra cost even if it meant the loss of a human life drove them to an unethical decision. Ford faced a simple problem, do they fix the Pinto or do they kill innocent people. Sadly, they preferred the money saving option, which was to ignore the defect and to pay compensates to effected families and loved ones. The company defended their decision using the CBA model as if they were legally exonerated from any penalties due to their actions. Fortunately, the jury did not see it as if their decision was justifiable even if the method to evaluate the decision

Option one was to use the Ford Capri’s tank design that sat above the rear axle in a safe location that was also utilized in Ford’s experimental safety vehicle that could withstand 60 mph rear end collisions (Class Handout). Option two called for reinforcement around the filler to prevent tearing, along with a tank shield that stopped punctures. Due to the Pinto’s short conception to production window the engineers were reluctant to go and tell Lee about the setback. One engineers response to being ask about telling Lee was, “Hell no. That person would have been fired. Safety wasn’t a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say ‘Read the project objectives and get back to work” (Class Handout). The project objectives are a step-by-step plan for the model and in the Pinto’s case; safety was not mentioned once (Class Handout). This put the engineers in a very tough position because one of the main ethical responsibilities of an engineer is to protect the welfare of the

The fire and explosion risk that could occur even during low speed rear-end impact was reported, however, Ford made the decision to continue with the original design. It seemsFord officials made their decision to continue with the original design of the Pinto firstly, due to the spedup production schedule and any changes would mean retooling of the production line, which would addanother year to the schedule. Secondly, they conducted a cost-benefit analysis where they calculated thevalue of human life at $200, 000, a serious burn injury at $67, 000 and estimated deaths of 180 people andserious burns to 180 people. They determined that the reworked gas tank on the Pinto would cost $137million while possible liability cost could work out to be $49 million. Ford decided it would be more profitable to produce the Pinto with the defect rather than correct the flaw. The results was numerous preventable deaths, serious fire related injuries or damages and ³approximately fifty lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with the rear-end accidents in the Pinto,´

7. Would it have made a moral difference if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to Ford’s customer? Could a rational customer have chosen to save a few dollars and risk having the more dangerous gas tank? What if Ford had told potential customers about its decision?

The Elkhart County Grand Jury took up the matter and filed a charge of criminal homicide against Ford, the Automobile American Corporation that designed the Pinto car models. According to Elkhart County Grand prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, Ford was guilty of reckless homicide, because the company committed a conscious, plain, and unjustifiable neglect of harm that positioned the gas tank in the rear end of the car without proven protection. Besides, Ford engaged in negligence and substantial deviation from the acceptable standards of conduct. The major focus of the case entailed the expanding and assessment of acceptable standards the company violated in the process of manufacture of Pinto cars.

Ford convinced NHTSA that cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate for determining not to change the fuel tank. The costs were eleven dollars per fuel tank to change which ended up equaling 137.5 million dollars. This number is very large and much bigger than the benefit if they would have not changed it, which was 49.5 million dollars.

The moral issues about the Ford Pinto is that they take their profit is more important than human life. They also did not inform the consumer about the facts of the Pinto. Lastly, they also lobbied the safety of the car to lowest standard (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp 97-99).

Ford rushed the Pinto into production even though engineers had discovered the potential danger of ruptured fuel tanks in preproduction crash tests. The assembly line was ready to go, and the company’s leaders chose to proceed with production. Many people saw Ford’s decision as evidence of the greed and mendacity of the leaders.

If placed in the position of jurors who heard the arguments of 1978, personal consideration would have included benefit and harm, instead of relying on the cost/benefit analysis. Investigation conducted by the prosecution discovered that the engineers for Ford had knowledge of the defect during pre-production crash testing. Contrary to practicing ethically halting production to correct the defect, the automobile manufacturer indicated making changes to the tool design were not cost effective; essentially placing a dollar value on human existence. Ford motors appeared to be concerned with the cost and amount of time necessary to fix problem; rather than the lives lost or people permanently affected by the burning vehicle.

By calculated how much a law suit against them will cost, Ford put the price on human life. They do not care about people. This decision is not ethical.

The uncertainty of where the burden of responsibility begins and ends within the consumer and manufacturer relationship has continued to fuel many moral controversies. In a free enterprise system, where government regulation is limited, it is critical to examine this issue as billions of transactions are occurring daily and in some extreme cases become deadly. An instance of this can be illustrated in the Ford Explorer Rollover lawsuit. Although there have been several theories to explain this complex relationship, the Due Care theory is the most superior. I will begin by analysing the Ford Explorer case with the Due Care theory and identify where the manufacturers violated their duties. I will than explain why manufacturers