Ford Pinto Case In the 1970s, Ford Motor Company wanted to be ahead of the competition in the small car market therefore they were willing to compromise their safety standards for profit. They knew that the low standards would result in the deadly fires but thought that it would be too costly to stop production to redesign the car. They also believed that Safety did not sell cars. The part that would need to be installed in the Ford Pinto would have cost Ford $11 per car. Ford Motor Company was knowingly making cheap Pinto cars that exploded upon rear end collisions.
This seems to be a disregard for human life. From a human rights perspective, Ford disregarded the injured individual's rights and therefore, in making the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethically. The suggested improvement outweighs their benefits; they do not want to bear the cost. Ford could bargain with manufacturer for a lower cost of alteration of the tank, then maybe they can change their mind and pinto wouldn’t burn so many people
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
Consumers loved this sub-compact vehicle. Looking into the remarks of Mark Dowe from Pinto Madness, “he had put together the story printed here from data obtained for him by some very disaffected Ford engineers. The data suggested that the Pinto had been rushed into production without adequate testing; that it had a very vulnerable fuel system that would rupture with any rear-end collision; that even though the vulnerability was discovered before production, Ford had hurried the Pinto to the market anyway” (Treviño & Nelson, 2007, p. 292). If we were involved in the Ford case we would have considered all of the stakeholders and possible risks that could have been avoided. Taking into thought the long run of the company instead of the losses that the company would inquire in the short-term.
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
Should the punitive damages be affirmed? What are the obligations of a corporation when it knows one of its products may be dangerous? Is an automobile company ethically obligated to make a totally safe car? Should we require a manufacturer to improve the safety of its cars if doing so will make them too expensive for many drivers? What would you do if you were a mid-level executive and saw evidence that your company was endangering the lives of consumers to save money?
“Going off site inevitably made executives anxious”. Adam Gryglak, the chief diesel engineer for Ford delivered an all new ford engine that was classified as an “impossible task”. Through strategic planning, team corporation, group performance and a change in culture and lifestyle, Adam Gryglak was able to deliver an assignment that made executives “anxious” and in previous years “tended to look unkindly on heterodoxy”. The project nicknamed “Scorpion” was a success which was contributed by a degree of factors, the underlying being trust. Without the trust of the hierarchy of Ford managers the project wouldn’t have been delivered or achieved in the manner it was.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
Grimshaw and Gray’s heirs sued Ford motor company based on theories of negligence and strict liability, alleging that the defendants knew from pre-manufacturing crash tests regarding the design flaws with the fuel system (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981). Legal Analysis In order to remain competitive in the subcompact market, Ford began designing an automobile which ultimately became the Pinto. The Pinto project was a rush project and there were several design flaws (Ford Pinto, 2012, para. 1). The Ford Pinto had a questionable design from the beginning.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.