1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? 2. SupposeFordofficialswereasked
ID: 2810628 • Letter: 1
Question
1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise?
2. SupposeFordofficialswereaskedtojustifytheir decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke? Assess Ford’s handling of the Pinto from the perspective of each of the moral theories discussed in this chapter.
3. Utilitarians would say that jeopardizing motorists does not by itself make Ford’s action morally objectionable. The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. Do you think Ford did this?
4. Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study. Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way?
5. Speculate about Kant’s response to the idea of placing a monetary value on a human life. Is doing so ever morally legitimate?
6. What responsibilities to its customers do you think Ford had? What are the most important moral rights, if any, operating in the Pinto case?
7. Would it have made a moral difference if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to Ford’s customers? Could a rational customer have chosen to save a few dollars and risk having the more dangerous gas tank? What if Ford had told potential customers about its decision?
Explanation / Answer
1. Ford Pinto case study essentially puts light on however legally a company may be right, it necessarily need not be ethically correct. The manufacture of sub standard Pinto cars following moral issues arose:
A. Life under risk
With ruptures and other flaws, cars caused many accidents leading to deaths of their valuable customers. This was not ethically correct.
B. Human life over money
Whatever be the scenario nothing is valuable more than human life. The justification of the company that cost of preventing injury or deaths based on an analysis is not acceptable any day.
2. The major argument put forward by Ford officials would be that the car was the result of their effort to build a pocket friendly vehicle. The car was priced low so that every one dreaming to own the car would fulfill it but thy didn't think of the consequence of a sub standard product from their side. The cost benefit analysis was used to defend themselves.
3. No, Ford actually did nothing to the affected parties. Even when it was the company which fell on its standards, it was putting the blame on the customers that it was their obligation to be precautions before purchase.
4. Cost benefit analysis though helps the company to make useful decisions most of the time, it was not appropriate in the case of Ford Pinto.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.