In the article, “The Ford Pinto-Moral Issues in Business,” William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry review moral issues in the Ford Pinto case over Ford’s choice to market a type of vehicle with a defective fuel system. The case involves the production, safety concerns, and ethics surrounding the Ford Pinto vehicle and its fuel system. Ford wanted to manufacture a car that was more efficient, cheap, and could compete with the Japanese car models in the U.S. market. However, crash tests revealed issues with the Pinto’s fuel tank placement and serious fire hazards emerging when the vehicle was struck from the rear, even in low- speed collisions (Shaw, Barry, 2016, 1). However, instead of making safety improvements to the car, Ford marketed the car
…show more content…
The system of Utilitarianism, presented by John Stuart Mill, directly addresses the question of justice in a community. Mill defines justice as Utilitarianism as the greatest good for the most amount of people, with the least amount of harm possible (Mill, 2001:7). To understand how a Utilitarian would evaluate this situation, one most first recognize that Utilitarianism is about what actions bring not only you, but your community, the most happiness. In the case surrounding Ford’s cost-benefit analysis, Ford found it justified not to replace Pinto’s faulty fuel system, despite the fact that the car model failed to meet Federal Safety Standards. In Ford’s cost-benefit analysis, the company portrayed discrepancy on how they were counting fatalities in order to market the car. Ford Company only counted fatalities from people who had died from the fuel tank exploding, not from the car collision. For Ford, these actions only benefited their own company and profit, instead of the community as a whole. The car model was rushed and unsafe which ultimately caused harm to the community. The company then decided that safety improvements to the car outweighed the overall cost (Shaw, Barry, 2016, 2). In this sense, Ford focused on what could be taken away for the most efficiency, expediency, and profit. The company pushed for profit and expediency, instead of the safety and contentment of their customers. Therefore, a Utilitarian would not agree with the choices made by Ford because the company acted in selfish interests. The idea of justice does apply to this situation. In Mill’s terms, justice includes a rule of conduct that must be supposed common to all mankind and envisioned for their own good (Mill, 2001:53). The community had a right to know the car was faulty, but with Ford not protecting those rights, they weren’t working for the good of the people. Justice was
The system of Utilitarianism, presented by John Stuart Mill, directly addresses the question of justice in a community. Mill defines justice as Utilitarianism as the greatest good for the most amount of people, with the least amount of harm possible (Mill, 2001:7). To understand how a Utilitarian would evaluate this situation, one most first recognize that Utilitarianism is about what actions bring not only you, but your community, the most happiness. In the case surrounding Ford’s cost-benefit analysis, Ford found it justified not to replace Pinto’s faulty fuel system, despite the fact that the car model failed to meet Federal Safety Standards. In Ford’s cost-benefit analysis, the company portrayed discrepancy on how they were counting fatalities in order to market the car. Ford Company only counted fatalities from people who had died from the fuel tank exploding, not from the car collision. For Ford, these actions only benefited their own company and profit, instead of the community as a whole. The car model was rushed and unsafe which ultimately caused harm to the community. The company then decided that safety improvements to the car outweighed the overall cost (Shaw, Barry, 2016, 2). In this sense, Ford focused on what could be taken away for the most efficiency, expediency, and profit. The company pushed for profit and expediency, instead of the safety and contentment of their customers. Therefore, a Utilitarian would not agree with the choices made by Ford because the company acted in selfish interests. The idea of justice does apply to this situation. In Mill’s terms, justice includes a rule of conduct that must be supposed common to all mankind and envisioned for their own good (Mill, 2001:53). The community had a right to know the car was faulty, but with Ford not protecting those rights, they weren’t working for the good of the people. Justice was