I’d like to discuss the case of the Ford Pinto that happened right here in Detro
ID: 429313 • Letter: I
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. (Please no copy paste answers)
4.Since we’re on the topic of last week, let’s go back to Milton Friedman and Edward Freeman for a question. The thesis of Friedman’s piece was: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” As we know, Ford’s motivation for making the Pinto in the way that it did was to increase its profits. Moreover, we know that Ford stayed within its legal limits. So far so good for Friedman. But was Ford being deceptive or fraudulent?Do you think that the public was adequately informed concerning the dangers of the Pinto? In answering this, note that consumer awareness in the late ‘70s was likely not as extensive as it is now. If they were not adequately informed, what does this say about the consumer's consent? Could they really consent to the purchase, and therefore assume liability? What might Edward Freeman say about this situation, especially in light of Kant’s moral maxim to never treat people merely as a means but always as ends?
Explanation / Answer
Yes I think company was deceptive in launching a product knowing the drawbacks of the system. Company did risk benefit analysis and decided not to change the system. Although Company had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding and was a safe design, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths.
So clealry company was decisive on making profits rather than making a product safe to use and considering social laibility company holds towards society.
No. Public was not adequately informed concerning the dangers of the Ford Pinto. In the court case "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.", the California Court upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford Motor Co., partly because Ford had been aware of the defects within the fuel system design before production but decided against changing the design.
Consumer was not very active or self informed about the products compared to today's consumer. Reason could be the absence of source to provide information like we have access to huge database online to gather information about any product online.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.