Business of Ford Pinto - Essay Example

Different ethical doctrines or theories can likely create a very notable difference on how the executives carry out a decision. In the case of the operation of Ford Pinto, an ethical egoist's suggestion to Ford's executive at those times will most likely differ from that of a utilitarian. Ethical egoists put their own self-interest first, Though advocates of this ethical principle have different concepts on self-interest, the fact remains that course of action that would produce the highest payoff for the doer of the action will be the most ethical choice.

In the Ford Pinto case an ethical egoist would most probably advise Ford's executives to continue the production of the car. With the fierce competition that the automobile industry in those days, it was wise that Ford would launch a product that will have a commanding competitive edge. Ford Pinto passed all the qualifications that would make the car a hot item. In terms of price, passenger convenience, fuel efficiency, and other criteria Ford Pinto is outstanding. The car, however, had only one critical flaw, its safety.

Its design makes it susceptible to put the car into flames that will endanger its passengers. Ford still manufactured Pinto despite the fact that its engineers were aware about the issue beforehand. Nevertheless, an ethical egoist's defense to Ford's decision is the huge cost that they would incur if they stop the production. As mentioned above, safety is only a small disadvantage of the car compared to its many benefits. Besides, it is the responsibility of the buyer to minimize the risk to accidents.

Concerning the issue of the car's design an ethical egoist may argue that Ford has a patented fuel tank that is more dependable and robust compared to other car brands. Stopping Pinto's production will greatly affect the financial status of the company. This huge cost may cause the corporation to close. This will definitely harm the laid off employees and also the US economy. For ethical egoists the statement of Ford's president at that time, Lee Iacocca, "Safety doesn't sell" is justifiable.

For advocates of utilitarian ethics, an ethical doctrine that states that the decision or course of action that will yield the highest benefit (or utility) is the best and most morally upright, on the other hand, the continued production of Ford Pinto after knowing that it has a major safety flaw is unjustifiable. First looking at the benefit or the utility that Ford, itself, will receive out of releasing Pinto in the market, utilitarians may argue that production of this product knowing that it has a vital defect is itself unjustifiable.

There is no good reason why Ford will endanger its reputation to the public. Though they may reap benefits in terms of profit in the short run, still it will not compensate the loss of trust that their risky move will engender. This marred reputation most probably will result into lower sales in the future. In terms of its responsibility to the society, Ford's move for utilitarians is irresponsible and unacceptable. Though it may have computed the cost that they may incur once there compensate casualties because of their product, still that does not justify the loss of a human life because of their negligence and irresponsibility.

In terms of computing financial costs, a human life and moral damages is incomparable to the figures that they released. Ford also know even before the launching of the car that additional parts and equipments might have saved the lives of their customers, yet still they commenced the production without adding it. As a result, numerous people died or were injured because of their blatant negligence. Had they included these parts that would just cost a little, they would have saved their reputation and the lives of their loyal customers.

Works Cited Wills, Simon, et. al. "Design Defects of the Ford Pinto Gas Tank: Engineering Disaster." 13 February 2007