The Ford Motor company and its engineers faced a number of ethical predicaments during the development and production of the Ford Pinto. Most notably, ethical problems arose concerning what the engineers' responsibilities were once it became clear from the crash tests that the Pinto had severe design flaws. Additionally, there were questions of what management's responsibility was when it came to the matter of issuing a recall.
(Image: http://inanotherlifetime.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ethics-9651.jpg)
Engineers
Harley Copp was a former Ford engineer who has testified that the highest levels of management at Ford understood the Pinto's problem with the fuel tank in crash tests but were unwilling to deviate from the design if the change would cost money. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Standard 301 in 1976, a regulation limiting the amount of fuel that could leak from the tank in a rear end collision. Ford’s 1977 Pinto model met regulation, but its earlier (1970-76) model would not have met Standard 301. (Although, it did meet existing standards at the time of production). (Birsch) The engineers prepared several reports in the early 1970's that showed that unless the fuel system was repackaged it would not meet proposed fuel leakage guidelines (The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Standard 301 in 1976, a regulation limiting the amount of fuel that could leak from the tank in a rear end collision. Ford’s 1977 Pinto model met regulation, but its earlier (1970-76) model would not have met Standard 301). (Birsch, p.58-59)
A rights ethics analysis of the engineers' situation would probably find the engineers' lack of action to be problematic. Rights ethics emphasizes the exercise of liberty in the context of truth and trust. The only people who fully understood the seriousness of the Pinto problem for the first few years of its production were people within Ford. People purchasing the Ford Pinto in its early years were doing so without a full understanding of its problems, so their liberty to make an informed choice and their right to drive a safe vehicle were being infringed upon. A rights ethics analysis of the engineers' situation does seem to call for the use of more drastic whistle-blowing behavior. (Martin)
Management
After being informed of the Pinto's design flaws, management at Ford had to decide whether or not to implement the suggested fixes. Besides wanting to simply minimize costs, Ford management utilized the previously mentioned cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to implement the fixes or, once the car was in production, issue a recall right away.
Ford's management decisions regarding the Pinto do not seem to hold up well to ethical analysis (especially rights or duty ethics) but, there does seem to be potential for justification when a utilitarian ethics analysis is applied. Utilitarianism calls for the most good for the most people. The 'most good' in the Pinto's case is accomplished when economics is the sole consideration. Ford does good for itself by saving millions of dollars in recall, retooling, and repair costs and the majority of customers (all customer minus the one's who suffer a catastrophic rear end collision) benefit from a lower price at the dealership. The problem with a utilitarian ethics analysis is that it can fail to account for a problematic distribution of 'evil'. In other words, while a majority of Pinto owners benefited from being able to purchase a less expensive car, those owners who did suffer catastrophic rear-end collisions bore the entire brunt of the 'evil' associated with the decision to allow for such failures. (Martin)
Engineers
Harley Copp was a former Ford engineer who has testified that the highest levels of management at Ford understood the Pinto's problem with the fuel tank in crash tests but were unwilling to deviate from the design if the change would cost money. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Standard 301 in 1976, a regulation limiting the amount of fuel that could leak from the tank in a rear end collision. Ford’s 1977 Pinto model met regulation, but its earlier (1970-76) model would not have met Standard 301. (Although, it did meet existing standards at the time of production). (Birsch) The engineers prepared several reports in the early 1970's that showed that unless the fuel system was repackaged it would not meet proposed fuel leakage guidelines (The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued Standard 301 in 1976, a regulation limiting the amount of fuel that could leak from the tank in a rear end collision. Ford’s 1977 Pinto model met regulation, but its earlier (1970-76) model would not have met Standard 301). (Birsch, p.58-59)
A rights ethics analysis of the engineers' situation would probably find the engineers' lack of action to be problematic. Rights ethics emphasizes the exercise of liberty in the context of truth and trust. The only people who fully understood the seriousness of the Pinto problem for the first few years of its production were people within Ford. People purchasing the Ford Pinto in its early years were doing so without a full understanding of its problems, so their liberty to make an informed choice and their right to drive a safe vehicle were being infringed upon. A rights ethics analysis of the engineers' situation does seem to call for the use of more drastic whistle-blowing behavior. (Martin)
Management
After being informed of the Pinto's design flaws, management at Ford had to decide whether or not to implement the suggested fixes. Besides wanting to simply minimize costs, Ford management utilized the previously mentioned cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not to implement the fixes or, once the car was in production, issue a recall right away.
Ford's management decisions regarding the Pinto do not seem to hold up well to ethical analysis (especially rights or duty ethics) but, there does seem to be potential for justification when a utilitarian ethics analysis is applied. Utilitarianism calls for the most good for the most people. The 'most good' in the Pinto's case is accomplished when economics is the sole consideration. Ford does good for itself by saving millions of dollars in recall, retooling, and repair costs and the majority of customers (all customer minus the one's who suffer a catastrophic rear end collision) benefit from a lower price at the dealership. The problem with a utilitarian ethics analysis is that it can fail to account for a problematic distribution of 'evil'. In other words, while a majority of Pinto owners benefited from being able to purchase a less expensive car, those owners who did suffer catastrophic rear-end collisions bore the entire brunt of the 'evil' associated with the decision to allow for such failures. (Martin)
