1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise?
The Pinto case raises many moral issues. First, the case states that Ford knew of the faults of the Pinto and continued to sell them – even after they failed testing. Next, the company used a cost-benefit analysis that put a price on human lives in comparison to the amount they would have to pay to fix the issue. Ford was also involved in many lawsuits; however, they were never charged of crime but rather paid money to those impacted. Ultimately, Ford never admitted their mistake or told their customers, but rather, they claimed that they met government standards despite the safer foreign-made vehicles of the time.
2. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles …show more content…
I do not think this because it does not treat humans as ends in themselves, but rather as only means to their own ends. The maxim of Ford’s action puts their own ends before that of others – putting costs before human lives that may be impacted from the lack of safety improvements. Manufacturers would probably not be willing to abide by it if the positions were reversed and they were in the role of consumers. They probably would not appreciate money being put ahead of their own safety. 9. Should Ford have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case?
Ford should have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case. Ford was completely aware of the fault in their Pintos, yet they failed to address the problem. The company knew that a hit to the rea end of the car could be fatal as there was potential for fire after the fuel-tank was hit. Because of this, I believe that they should have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case because they knew that their product was faulty, and because of the fault, three people were killed.
10. Are carmakers these days concerned enough about safety? Why do you think GM failed to address the ignition switch
The Pinto case raises many moral issues. First, the case states that Ford knew of the faults of the Pinto and continued to sell them – even after they failed testing. Next, the company used a cost-benefit analysis that put a price on human lives in comparison to the amount they would have to pay to fix the issue. Ford was also involved in many lawsuits; however, they were never charged of crime but rather paid money to those impacted. Ultimately, Ford never admitted their mistake or told their customers, but rather, they claimed that they met government standards despite the safer foreign-made vehicles of the time.
2. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles …show more content…
I do not think this because it does not treat humans as ends in themselves, but rather as only means to their own ends. The maxim of Ford’s action puts their own ends before that of others – putting costs before human lives that may be impacted from the lack of safety improvements. Manufacturers would probably not be willing to abide by it if the positions were reversed and they were in the role of consumers. They probably would not appreciate money being put ahead of their own safety. 9. Should Ford have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case?
Ford should have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case. Ford was completely aware of the fault in their Pintos, yet they failed to address the problem. The company knew that a hit to the rea end of the car could be fatal as there was potential for fire after the fuel-tank was hit. Because of this, I believe that they should have been found guilty of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case because they knew that their product was faulty, and because of the fault, three people were killed.
10. Are carmakers these days concerned enough about safety? Why do you think GM failed to address the ignition switch