Based on (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp. 97), there are three things which are immoral Ford Pinto has done. Firstly, Ford denied the facts that Pinto is unsafe, which is misleading the public. Secondly, the company declare that the Pinto model pass the government’s safety standards where it is not true. Another thing is that the company hides the fact where they have successfully lobbying the standards having it to be delayed for seven years, which means in between these years the customer will be risking their lives driving on such cars.
PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE COMMERCE (COMM 101) TUTORIAL PREPARATION WEEK 3 NAME: Chang Yee How UOW NUMBER: 4387296 Case Study: Ford Pinto 1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? The Pinto case brought up issue of abusing human rights and behaved unethically in business. Ford had the design to reduce the possibility of Ford Pinto from exploding. However, the company refused to implement it, although it can prevent 180 deaths from happening at a cost of $11 per car according to the cost-benefit analysis.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than it usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months; Ford took 25 months. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions, the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily.
Well because designers of the cars believed that if there were less driver distractions than they can include less safety features. Designing a safer car is more important than reducing driver distractions because there will always a driver distracted whether the car is safer or not. I think that it’s more realistic and smarter designing a safer car because you don’t know what or who can distract the passenger it could even be in the car that’s distracting them so if by making it safer inside and out the more likely it’s going to protect the passenger and the occupants inside the vehicle. In conclusion I believe that creating a safer car is more important than reducing driver distraction because it always depends on the drivers attention span, second you will always have distractions on the road, and third of all the safer the car the safer the accident
Knudsen did not agree with Iacocca and Ford regarding competing so fiercely with the small foreign car market and was eventually forced to resign. Ford promoted Iacocca to president who immediately ordered the manufacture of the Pinto with a two year deadline (Trevino & Nelson, 2007). When the Pinto debuted in 1971 Ford was aware of the faulty fuel tank design, but according to the proposed guidelines set by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, the Pinto met the required standards. It was not until 1977 that the Standard 301 was approved and all Pintos were provided with rupture-proof gas tanks. Iacocca set
I agree when they do things such as putting a camera on a stoplight so if one runs a red light they’ll get in trouble and others will be safe. Sometimes the government just does very unreasonable things. In many airports in America, for “security” reasons, they have two new ways to check one for airplane safety. It’s your choice, naked x-ray scanners or government molestation. The x-ray full body scanner not only violates privacy but also is harmful to citizens.
Typically it took automobile makers approximately 3.5 years to release an automobile to the public. However, Lee Iacocca felt that this timeframe was unacceptable and Ford could have the Pinto ready in two years. During the crash test phase it was recognized that the fuel tank caught on fire if rear-ended. However, because production procedures were overlapping this discovery would cost Ford too much money to stop production and redesign a safer model. Ford proceeded with the current model, and the Pinto was debut in 1971 (Trevino, 2006, p.116).
Moore persuades his audiences by saying as a society; we tend to forget what the outcome is when big corporations decide to fire workers because the CEO wants more for their salary. Analogy, argumentation, and personal anecdotes are some methods Moore uses to demonstrate to his audiences. Moore uses analogy throughout his essay by comparing crack to downsizing by GM and big companies like “AT&T, and GE.” The CEO states, “A company must be able to do whatever it wants to make a profit.” This shows that any company will do anything it needs to do to make a profit whether it’s ruining lives or communities. Moore suggests that General Motors sell crack. “But Crack is illegal!” you say.
9. As a result of such accidents killed at least 53 people Ethical issues Is it morally ethical'' Ford'' to market a car with proven defect in order to beat the competition "at all costs?" Is it morally ethical business decision not to complete costs (amounting to $ 137 million) for securing of the container.? Is it ethical adoption of cost - benefit analysis that shows that the costs are excessive and delayed serial production - uneconomical.? Victory over the competition "at all costs" does not mean sacrificing human life for this tsel.Ne Are namely people (customers, buyers of finished products) that contribute to this victory?
Firestone later reprimanded Robert W. Dechrd, CEO of A.H. Bello Corporation (owners of KHOU) and Peter Diaz, President and General Manager of KHOU, for airing the story which, according to them, “contained falsehoods and misrepresentations that improperly disparage Firestone and, its product, the Radial ATX model tire”2. Firestone attempted to rule out tire problems at the very beginning suggesting that Ford Explorers were prone to rollovers and that Ford had recommended a tire pressure lower than that required. However, in November 1999, in a key victory won by Randy Roberts, Jessica Taylor’s family attorney, Judge Sam Bornias ordered Firestone to turn over all