Business Ethics The Pinto gas tank vulnerability situation in the 1960s and 1970s was an embarrassment for the Ford Motor Company but moreover, it was a defining moment in a corporate decision-making process that was highly unethical and hence, in hindsight, repugnant to the American public.

If I was deciding whether to have a recall of the Pinto or settle the cases, which one would I choose?

Certainly it seems easy in hindsight to choose the moral, ethical thing to do (recall all the vehicles to save lives and avoid injuries to passengers), but that is exactly what I would choose to do. As the Decision Point narrative points out: "…health and safety" have a value over and above the value of replacing a part on a car that is unsafe.

It brings to mind the well-known advertisement for Master Card -- "There are some things money can't buy." The advertisement lists several things that have a certain dollar value and then at the end of the pitch, there is always something that is "priceless." One could say that the value of a gallon of gas (in 1972) was $.40; a dozen eggs was...

The literature on the production of the Pinto shows that Iacocca really was urgently trying to get the Ford version of a compact car on the road.
So the president of Ford made the decision to pay the injury and death-related costs (or out-of-court costs) based on an estimated 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 vehicles that were totally destroyed by fire. I would have recalled the Pinto and replaced the part that was causing fires, injuries, and deaths.

What influence does the value of my stakeholders have upon your decision? There are many stakeholders involved in this matter. First of all, consumers who buy the Pinto are stakeholders and there should be…