The decision by the executives of the Ford Motor Company to continue marketing the Ford Pinto is an unfortunate example of prioritizing cost savings over safety. The flaw in the design of the fuel tank was not a mere inconvenience for drivers, but a major safety hazard with devastating consequences. Measuring dollars against human life is an act that conflicts with both ethical norms and legal standards. A company has equally ethical and legal obligation to make certain dangerous products are no longer sold to consumers and that the units already in use are either suitably repaired or disposed of properly (Xia Liu, Liu, & Lou, 2016). In that regard, I would not have proceeded with marketing the Ford Pinto and would have initiated a recall immediately. A similar product liability case occurred with General Motors and faulty ignition switches. These
…show more content…
These cases are similar in that both of the companies were aware of problems and chose not to correct them, despite the risk to drivers and passengers. This decision was based primarily on the cost involved in correcting the problem over the cost of legal action that may be taken against the company. In both cases, the company did not consider the ethical consideration of protecting lives over the simple cost of fixing the problem. From an outsider’s perspective, there seems to be very few differences in these cases. The only difference that I can identify from the information in the article may be the level of awareness within the organization. In the case of Ford Motor Company, an internal memo was circulated among Ford’s executive directors making them aware of the design defect. In the General Motors case, while the company knew about the problem since 2001, the CEO wasn’t informed about it until December 2013, although that is a questionable
These cases are similar in that both of the companies were aware of problems and chose not to correct them, despite the risk to drivers and passengers. This decision was based primarily on the cost involved in correcting the problem over the cost of legal action that may be taken against the company. In both cases, the company did not consider the ethical consideration of protecting lives over the simple cost of fixing the problem. From an outsider’s perspective, there seems to be very few differences in these cases. The only difference that I can identify from the information in the article may be the level of awareness within the organization. In the case of Ford Motor Company, an internal memo was circulated among Ford’s executive directors making them aware of the design defect. In the General Motors case, while the company knew about the problem since 2001, the CEO wasn’t informed about it until December 2013, although that is a questionable