Argument of the ford pinto case

Mercury Bobcat — [ edit ] — Mercury Bobcat Runabout Lincoln-Mercury dealers marketed a rebadged variant of the Pinto, as the Mercury Bobcat, beginning with model year in Canada produced in all of the same body styles. It was styled with a unique eggcrate grille and chrome headlamp bezels.

Argument of the ford pinto case

Wednesday, June 18, Ford Pinto: Tooling had an especially short time frame and so the machines that make the car parts were produced before the car was effectively tested.

An anonymous Ford engineer commented that "this company is run by salesmen, not engineers; so the priority is styling, not safety. Executive management anticipated the legal repercussions and found it more profitable to fight allegations and legislation rather than improve the safety of their product.

Company engineers and other employees as well as shareholders and other profiting stakeholders benefited financially from the executive decision to take the more profitable route; although it could be Argument of the ford pinto case that by not resisting, all knowledgeable stakeholders were equally morally responsible as the one who made the decision.

The most important stakeholder in any company is the customer, as they are the blood that runs through the veins and gives life to an idea. It is the duty of a company to serve their target market, which to some extend Ford did do. Ford built a vehicle that consumers could afford with the utility that they desired; however, their lack of concern for safety endangered the lives of their customers which leads to ethical considerations regarding the value of human life versus the value of company profit.

Analysis Based on Ethical Theories This dilemma could be viewed from various theoretical perspectives in regards to ethics. We see here a clash between two opposing cultural perspectives: That of a corporate culture mindset which prioritizes profit as the highest value, and one of an ethical perspective where it is seen as a social norm to value human life above financial gain.

It is reasonable to assume that the average person would find it immoral to take the life of another human being for financial gain. On one hand, we value human life as a social agreement that we each value our own life and therefore have a duty to respect the lives of others to preserve the right to our own.

On the other hand, we have designed an economic system that incentivizes social progress with personal gain and competition, making our work values different than our personal values. In order to sustain the corporations that provide us with provisions, we embrace the corporate value of maximizing profit, disregarding personal values that contradict many decisions that are made in the name of profit.

Since individually, the people who make decisions that put the lives of others in danger value their own life, they could not will that this be a universal law because they would not want their own life put in danger. Based on our own individual rights and expectations of society, we have a duty to maintain a sense of social responsibility in our personal lives as well as our work lives; even to the extent of resisting when an unethical decision is being executed that endangers the lives of others as seen with the Ford Pinto.

Argument of the ford pinto case

It could also be argued as morally permissible based on an economical argument that shows how more people benefit than the number of people who are harmed. However, if human life is considered invaluable as each of us perceive our own life to be, these types of arguments quickly lose integrity. To monetize human life for the purpose of a cost-benefits analysis clearly lacks ethical consideration, as life is invaluable and cannot be translated into monetary terms without dehumanizing individuals as nothing more than consumers meant to generate revenue to fuel an economy that is meant to serve society as a means of allowing specialization and trade to improve the quality of life for all.

Many lives have been lost as a consequence of incentivizing social progress with personal gain rather than social gain. It is true that profit allows the existence of companies that bring forth innovations and luxuries, improving the quality of lives for many; however, if our only concern is profit then we perceive the consumers that fuel the economy as mere cash cows meant to be exploited rather than served.

Ford decides to let the Pinto explode. Fortune, 13 New York University Law Review, Philosophical foundations and business realities. Mother Jones, Retrieved from http:The Ford Pinto was an American subcompact car produced from to It was developed as Ford's entry into the small car marketplace.

Pressures from foreign competition and the looming rise in gas prices incentivized Ford’s upper management to cut the Pinto’s delivery time in half. THE FORD PINTO CASE. The scandal and the trial.

Lee Iacocca's Pinto: A fiery failure

On August 10, , a tragic automobile accident occurred on U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen, Indiana. Ford Pinto Case Ethical Issues On August 10, three young girls died in a Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van.

The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the . Ford Pinto Case Study MGT Ford Pinto Case Study The purpose of this paper will be to determine whether Ford was to blame in the Ford Pinto Case. This paper will provide possible solutions as well as supporting statements.

Ford Pinto Case study The moral issue of the Ford Pinto case is whether or not Ford Company is responsible for the explosion caused by the failed tank.

Pinto Madness A Mother Jones Classic: For seven years the Ford Motor Company sold cars in which it knew hundreds of people would needlessly burn to death.

Proponents of the risk/benefit analysis counter this "ethical" argument with the idea that these are not either/or decisions being made, but rather gradations of risk. 87 That is, Ford is not sacrificing all safety features of the Pinto, it is a question of to what degree Ford feels safety features are necessary. It could be argued that the safety question was answered for them prior to the risk/benefit analysis when . Was Ford to Blame in Pinto Case? Weak Arguments. The Pro Team: The Con Team: Strong Arguments. The Pro Team: The Pro team started out with a strong argument detailing the controversy surrounding the flawed design engineering of the Pinto, with a gas tank located between the right rear wheel well and the rear bumper. The design flaw proved negligence on behalf of Ford, affecting the overall safety and /5(1). Ford Pinto Case Ethical Issues On August 10, three young girls died in a Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the .
Access denied | used Cloudflare to restrict access