Refer to this case, of about the Ford Pinto case, I have been read about this topic from web pages and forum that have been discuses. Here are some of studies that I have been made to finish this paper work in different aspects of ethics and professionalism. In the ‘Ford Pinto Case Study’, it seems clear that Ford management and its engineers did not intend to make an unsafe product, and that more than likely the outcome of their product resulted primarily from, the accelerated design and production schedule of the Ford Pinto.
During an era in which the government safety standards of today were non-existent, Ford was not obligated to adhere to the safety standards in question regarding the Ford Pinto. This may have contributed to the business decision made by Ford management to produce, market, and sell the Ford Pinto. Additionally, the faulty cost-benefit analysis played a role as well. However, in my estimation, Ford management endangers the integrity of its own safety practices for the small sake of profit.
Not only did Ford strongly disregard the industry safety standard for rear-end impact testing on the Pinto, but willing choose to subject its customers to the possibility of injury or death in their pursuit for a share of the small car market. Fords ethical perspective falls in line with that of Utilitarianism, to which the decision made serves the greater amount of good for those affected by the decision, and views its actions as having no instinctive value even when considering the obvious consequences.
Ford had several options at its disposal to prevent, minimize, and at least warn its customers of the potential harm associated with the Pinto. Despite these options, Ford chose not to even mention the potential for harm or death to its customers or the general public. Fords reluctance to do so was possibly due to the potential negative reaction the Pinto may have received from the general public.
For whatever reason the decision was made to put the Pinto on the market, it was on that truly lacked the moral responsibility that we as the public should expect from individuals who literally have our lives in their hands. In the Pinto case study, Ford knowingly knew they gas tank was a safety issue, but decided that the cost to redesign and make some needed changes would eat way most of their profits.
That reason alone was Fords mistake because of the accelerated schedule to make the Pinto, at the time of the test they already had machinery made. After Ford had seen though more than 40 crash tests that the gas tank had failed, they should have stopped and reanalyzed what the costs and benefits would be Newton & Ford. Because Ford had jump ahead and produced highly expensive machinery the cost to reproduce the mold would have taken most of their profits not the small plastic piece that would have made the Pinto safer.
Ford placed the company in this very bad predicament and should have never tried to accelerate the production schedule. Something putting a human life at risk needs to have the right precautions taken. Ford should have never decided to go with the Cost-Benefit analysis because there is no price that can be put on a human life. It is morally wrong to presume someone’s family member is worth less than a small piece of plastic that could have saved their lives.
Taking an ethical approach to the Ford Pinto case makes accepting the risk or benefit analysis performed by the Ford Motor Company difficult. In making what seems to be the correct decision based on numbers, Ford in essence adopted a policy of allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could have prevented it. 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.
As professionals, they live by codes of ethics that ascribe to them a paramount obligation to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public, an obligation that sometimes implies whistle blowing. This is Code of Ethics and Whistle Blower Policy that I have been read from web page that are related to this case study: “This policy reflects a code of conduct that requires directors, officers and employees of [Ford Motors] (FORD) to observe high standards of business and personal ethics in the conduct of their duties and responsibilities.
As employee and representative of FORD, we must practice honesty and integrity in fulfilling our responsibilities and comply with all the applicable laws and regulations. It also is our responsibility to report violations of this Code in accordance with this Policy. No director, officer or employee who in good faith reports a violation of the Code shall suffer harassment, retaliation or adverse employment consequence. ” pinto case