Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics
Ford is a well-known auto maker and neglected safety for styling due to the corporations belief that “safety doesn’t sell”. Due to the lucrative and competitive challenges from Volkswagen, European cars, and Japanese manufacturers, Ford rushed the Pintos, a small compact car, styling and price. As stated by the author, “The Pinto was brought from inception to production in the record time of approximately 25 months (compared to the industry average of 43 months), a time frame that suggested the necessity for doing things expediently.” Engineers and developers were required to maintain the “2000” rule. The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not to cost a cent over $2,000. Because of this …show more content…
In the Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics case, I do not believe that everyone would elect to proceed with the production of the Pinto after crash tests indicated that the vehicle was defective. Gioia knows that Pinto’s owners would be seriously injured or die after a minor accident and still sided with team members and voted against recalling the Pinto was morally irresponsible. For that reason, Gioia’s decision fails the generalization test because not everyone would stand aside and vote against the recall of the Pinto knowing that it was faulty; therefore, the action is inconsistent with the possibility that everyone who performs the action achieves its …show more content…
These are all virtues that make us who we are. To have integrity, we have to be consistent with these virtues. We compromise integrity when we lose our honor, integrity, and loyalty to our families and coworkers. By making this vehicle and knowing people are going to be seriously injured or die shows distrust, lack of loyalty and corporate social irresponsibility, thus, fails the virtue ethics test.
John Rawls believes that each person enjoys equal basic liberties. Every person equally has the freedom of speech, the right to vote, and to personal property. In this case, Gioia knew deaths occurred in these fatal car crashes and, as the Field Recall Coordinator, stood by while Ford continued to produce Pintos. His lack of actions goes against the basic liberty of “living”. If a person does not have a chance of living while driving a Pinto, how do they have a chance of speaking or
Ford is a well-known auto maker and neglected safety for styling due to the corporations belief that “safety doesn’t sell”. Due to the lucrative and competitive challenges from Volkswagen, European cars, and Japanese manufacturers, Ford rushed the Pintos, a small compact car, styling and price. As stated by the author, “The Pinto was brought from inception to production in the record time of approximately 25 months (compared to the industry average of 43 months), a time frame that suggested the necessity for doing things expediently.” Engineers and developers were required to maintain the “2000” rule. The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not to cost a cent over $2,000. Because of this …show more content…
In the Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics case, I do not believe that everyone would elect to proceed with the production of the Pinto after crash tests indicated that the vehicle was defective. Gioia knows that Pinto’s owners would be seriously injured or die after a minor accident and still sided with team members and voted against recalling the Pinto was morally irresponsible. For that reason, Gioia’s decision fails the generalization test because not everyone would stand aside and vote against the recall of the Pinto knowing that it was faulty; therefore, the action is inconsistent with the possibility that everyone who performs the action achieves its …show more content…
These are all virtues that make us who we are. To have integrity, we have to be consistent with these virtues. We compromise integrity when we lose our honor, integrity, and loyalty to our families and coworkers. By making this vehicle and knowing people are going to be seriously injured or die shows distrust, lack of loyalty and corporate social irresponsibility, thus, fails the virtue ethics test.
John Rawls believes that each person enjoys equal basic liberties. Every person equally has the freedom of speech, the right to vote, and to personal property. In this case, Gioia knew deaths occurred in these fatal car crashes and, as the Field Recall Coordinator, stood by while Ford continued to produce Pintos. His lack of actions goes against the basic liberty of “living”. If a person does not have a chance of living while driving a Pinto, how do they have a chance of speaking or