Comm 101

Therefore, by incorporating activities that promote class discussion, my students can potentially advance to higher levels of moral reasoning. When I first meet my students, I will introduce them to the Heinz Dilemma. Additionally, I will give them specific instructions stating that they are not to discuss the dilemma with anyone. Next, I will provide them with a survey of multiple choice and open-ended questions based on the Heinz Dilemma. Once again, the students will not be allowed to discuss their answers to the survey with their classmates. The results from this survey will provide me with my students’ initial level of moral reasoning. I will keep these initial surveys to reflect back on at the end of the

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

3. Utilitarians would say that jeopardizing motorists does not by itself make Ford’s action morally objectionable. The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. Do you think Ford did this?

In Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities, Dennis Gioia relives the case of the Ford Pinto. Throughout the article Gioia questions his involvement in this highly debated issue, consequently wondering where he fit in ethically. This piece brings together the ideas of technical, social, and political ethics, ultimately showing the importance of an engineer’s decision. Overall, I realize that the remorse or consequence of an ethical decision drives the examination of what is moral.

Hypothesis and overview of the essay (approximately 1 to 2 pages) This section should focus on using clear, concise writing to introduce your argumentative position based on the "Moral Instinct" editorial.

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

No. Kant’s 2nd categorical imperatives stated that we need to treat humanity always an end and never as a means. (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2009, pg77) According to the case, Ford did not put a human’s life as the first priority; in fact, they placed a monetary value on a human’s life. They are using the human life to determine whether their decision is profitable in the cost-benefit analysis which is against Kantianism.

Ford and Richardson (1994) the model of ethical decision-making is generally detached by individual factors and situational factors, which in situational factors is the most important.

The utilitarian theory would approach the ethical dilemmas by a identifying the stakeholders for the situation, and the possible consequences on these stakeholders, also it requires thinking broadly for consequences and impact on the society level not only on the close circle around the dilemma (Trevino p40).

I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Any business/service should never ever put a value on human life and not take consideration of a known deadly danger. Ford had an option as well as the solution to design the car in a way that prevented cars from exploding; however they refused to implement it.   They thought that it was cost effective not to fix dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people in spite of the fact that the only added cost was $ 11 per vehicle.

Everyone except Ford’s top executives, who in an internal document cited the potential danger. So not only did they know about it, but they calculated that it would be cheaper to pay out possible injury claims then it would be to recall all the vehicles. This ethical dilemma came to a head when three teenage girls were killed in Indiana while in a Ford Pinto. With the bad press and with company officials being indicted with negligence and homicide, Ford was forced to recall all their Pinto vehicles. Ethical issues in the auto industry regarding product safety are dangerous and are linked to human lives. The decisions that Ford executives made had a direct impact on those three teenage girls and the blood was left in their hands. This is just one of many faulty decisions made in automakers history that helped mold the unethical decisions made by Volkswagen in the most recent ethical issue facing the auto industry.

1) In your judgment did PepsiCo have a moral obligation to divest itself of all its Burmese assets? Explain your answer. Which approach to ethics – utilitarian, rights, justice, caring or virtue- is more appropriate for analyzing the case events in this case?