Case If we were involved in the Ford Pinto dilemma we would have used Deontological Ethical reasoning to decide whether or not to disclose the danger that the Pinto posed and/or use that reasoning to determine whether or not to Install the part(s) that would make the Ford Pinto safer. Our decision would be to do what is morally right and avoid doing what is morally wrong, regardless of the consequences.

True enough Ford was not obligated by government regulation or any law, to disclose the potential hazards of the Ford Pinto however; at the least they should have presented he option of purchasing the part to make the care safer – an option we would have made available to the customer. It is apparent Ford use the Utilitarian Ethical approach to come to their decision – choosing to do what produced the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people; a subcompact car that cost $2,000 and welling no more than 2,000 pounds (Ford & Newton, 2008, p. 96), sold to 1 1 million customers as opposed to the only 180 people who lost their lives! Valuing a human life at $200,000 against a part that if individually purchased cost $1 1, Ford felt hat it was less expensive to settle fatality claims at $200,000 per life – so they cost-benefit analysis. When a person comes to a conclusion on a decision, many times there are Influences from outside sources that impact the choices made. In this case It Is the lack of caring about human life, death and suffering. If you fall into that category, society looks upon you with the utmost contempt.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

People have generally accepted that death Is a natural part of the human cycle. The problem is that people usually come to easier terms with death when people die of “natural causes” and have lived a long ND fulfilling life. Unfortunately, the Ford motor company not only accepted that death was something we’d deal with but to them, not enough of a priority to prevent. The value of a dollar was worth more than the value of life (I. E. One dollar and one pound). During that time to some big businesses like Ford, the bottom line was to make money, and anything that prevented the maximum amount to be accumulated a problem.

Unfortunately for them, society does not think that way. The value of life is the most precious thing that we posses. The vast majority of sound thinking people shares this belief, Along with the value of life, there Is a natural dislike for greed In others. Although we are a capitalistic society and we are all searching for the “American dream” there is a general belief that you go after those goals with some honor and integrity and don’t throw away basic human decency for the accumulation of wealth. The issue of greed Is bigger than a societal one, religion also plays a huge role In which how we’re shaped.

With greed being considered a sin and this country maintaining a strong religious identity (Pew Research Center, 2002) in imprison to the rest of the world’s industrial powerful countries it is imperative Tanat any onto AT greed De evolved. Walt Torts Latent greed, It Is easy Tort sound- minded people to believe that Ford was to blame for the Pinto problem. As we examine the Ford Pinto case of 1971 there are many issues and concerns. Ford engineers discovered that the fuel system was easily able to be ruptured upon impact.

Ford leaked information that showed us that they tested the Pinto at least 40 times and every test resulted with the same result, a ruptured fuel tank. These endings were given to the top executives of Ford but Lee Local was not concerned with safety. He was known to say “Safety doesn’t sell”. Ford was responsible for over 500 burn deaths. Henry Ford II spent weeks in Washington trying to convince members of Congress to Join the anti-regulation battle. Ford’s consistent lobbying successful delayed safety standard being regulated by the government. In our day and time Safety is America’s number one concern with automobiles.

As a society we have put more responsibility on the manufactures to provide us safe and reliable icicles. 2010 consumers would not allow for so many victims to be burned to death by one specific vehicle before a solution was found and the vehicle was recalled and fixed. A prime example of this is the case of James Skies and his 2008 Toyota Prussia. Mr.. Skies claims that the accelerator was stuck and he was unable to stop. His story was broadcasted on every TV station. Toyota tested the vehicle for 2 hours, which in my opinion is not long enough, and was unable to reproduce the same outcome that Mr..

Skies had accoutered. Toyota was smart enough though to issue a recall immediately. Toyota knew that consumers were not going to tolerate anything less. In modern times Congress would not tolerate Ford’s or any other manufactures attempt in delaying a bill to be passed. Our government has matured like the American Consumers have and Ford’s behavior would not be tolerated. Unlike in the past we have The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FAMES) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance.