I’d like to discuss the case of the Ford Pinto that happened right here in Detro

Question

I’d like to discuss the case of the Ford Pinto that happened right here in Detroit. You’ve read two articles directly addressing the case, and two others whose material is relatable to the issue. Feel free to peruse the internet to gather further information on the case if desired. But, be forewarned: I am looking for you to cite our readings in your posts, NOT some blog post you found in the recesses of the internet. [Also, if you'd like to see a Ford Pinto exploding into flames, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY] After you’ve looked at the history, happenings, facts, morally relevant factors involved, etc., I’d like you answer the following questions:

3. Let’s talk a bit more about the difference between legality and morality. In last week’s post, I told you that questions about legality and morality are separate, though they often times overlap (e.g. - there are some things that are illegal, though not necessarily immoral, like not wearing your seatbelt; there are some things that are both illegal and immoral, like homicide; and still, there are some things that are likely immoral, though not illegal, like infidelity to your significant other). It is true that Ford designed the Pinto to satisfy all of the legalrequirements for safety. That being the case, did they, as a corporation, have a higher moral obligation to satisfy? Should corporations only worry about satisfying their legal requirements? What if the laws in place are morally bad? Does it make any moral difference that, during the design, Ford was successfully lobbying the US government to not impose more stringent safety requirements for cars like the Pinto?

Explanation / Answer

Though Ford had access to a fresh design which could decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the organization chose not to execute the design, which cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis to prove that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it utilized the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the money costs of undertaking the alteration were more than the societal benefit. Based on the figures Ford utilized, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag that was put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and so Ford felt that it was justified in not executing the design alteration. This risk/benefit analysis was created from the development of product liability, culminating at BPL formula, here if the expected harm is more than the cost to undertake the precaution, then the organization should take the precaution, whereas if the cost was liable, then it need not. However, the BPL formula emphasizes  a particular accident, whereas the risk/benefit analysis does an examination of the costs, risks, and benefits by using the product as a whole. Based on this study, Ford legally chose not to implement the design alterations which would have made the Pinto safer. However, only because this was legal need not necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is tough to comprehend how a price can be put on saving a human life.

There exist reasons as to why such a strictly economic theory should not be utilized. First, it is unethical that public should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it costs much to prevent it. Second, the analysis does not take into account all the outcomes, like the negative publicity that Ford got and the settlements resulting from the lawsuits. Moreover, all things should not be measured in terms of money, and this includes human life. However, there exist arguments in favor of the risk/benefit analysis. First, it is developed well by existing case law. Second, it encourages organizations to take precautions against creating risks that cause big accident costs. Then, it is argued that all things should have some common measure.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.