A grand Jury indicted the Ford Motor Company on charges of reckless homicide and criminal negligence that played a part to the death of three teenage girls on August 1978 in Elkhart, Indiana. They were killed in a fiery crash when their Ford Pinto was struck from the rear by a van driver on U.S Highway 33 near Goshen Indiana. Their automobile exploded and burst into flames. The Elkhart County grand Jury argued that Ford Company had previous knowledge that the fuel tank of pinto in which Judy Ulrich, 18; her sister Lynn, 16 and their cousin Donna Ulrich, 18 was hazardous. The grand jury stated that Ford Motor Company “had the legal right to warn the general public," - a legal obligation that ford failed to regulate.
The Elkhart County grand …show more content…
By not redesigning the tank and its position, or to change the tank product that would cost $11, but they decided to stick to their previous model because to amend the tank’s design and position is time and money consuming. Mother Jones magazine, got hold of a copy of the cost/benefit analysis which revealed Ford comparing the cost of $11 repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, which is known as the Ford Pinto memo. Is amazing that ford failed to adhere to moral compass to carry out proper ethical decision instead they took a wrong approach. Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths than to change or alter the design. …show more content…
So their influence on Mr. Iacocca’s decision to continue the pinto production would have been prevented. For starters, Ford Motor Company and its engineers failed to use the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism during the development and production of the Ford Pinto. Because Utilitarianism is based on the premise that our ethical choices, like other types of decision, should be based on their outcome......it consider both short-and long-term consequences when making ethical determination (Craig E.J., 2016). The ethical dilemma of lack of Altruism emerged from the engineers’ action once it became known that the result of the crash was a design flaws from the pinto; their interest was more on profit than saving life. They choose to disregard ethics of Moral Sensitivity whether or not they profit from doing so. Is quite obvious those involved with the Ford Pinto dilemmas experienced deontological ethics.
To express my perspective of organizational citizenship in the case of ford pinto. I understand that organizational citizenship is best described as the expectation of society from business, governments, and nonprofit organizations. In conducting business, is ethical to be transparent and truthful. My question is does the society view those actions taken by Ford Company justifiable? I do not think they made a responsible decision to protect the society. Because they failed to consider rational goals, respect and moral principles that governs a person's or group
The Elkhart County grand …show more content…
By not redesigning the tank and its position, or to change the tank product that would cost $11, but they decided to stick to their previous model because to amend the tank’s design and position is time and money consuming. Mother Jones magazine, got hold of a copy of the cost/benefit analysis which revealed Ford comparing the cost of $11 repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, which is known as the Ford Pinto memo. Is amazing that ford failed to adhere to moral compass to carry out proper ethical decision instead they took a wrong approach. Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths than to change or alter the design. …show more content…
So their influence on Mr. Iacocca’s decision to continue the pinto production would have been prevented. For starters, Ford Motor Company and its engineers failed to use the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism during the development and production of the Ford Pinto. Because Utilitarianism is based on the premise that our ethical choices, like other types of decision, should be based on their outcome......it consider both short-and long-term consequences when making ethical determination (Craig E.J., 2016). The ethical dilemma of lack of Altruism emerged from the engineers’ action once it became known that the result of the crash was a design flaws from the pinto; their interest was more on profit than saving life. They choose to disregard ethics of Moral Sensitivity whether or not they profit from doing so. Is quite obvious those involved with the Ford Pinto dilemmas experienced deontological ethics.
To express my perspective of organizational citizenship in the case of ford pinto. I understand that organizational citizenship is best described as the expectation of society from business, governments, and nonprofit organizations. In conducting business, is ethical to be transparent and truthful. My question is does the society view those actions taken by Ford Company justifiable? I do not think they made a responsible decision to protect the society. Because they failed to consider rational goals, respect and moral principles that governs a person's or group