Pinto Ethics Deontological and Utilitarian

Pinto

Ethics

Deontological and utilitarian ethics at the Ford Motor Company: The case of the Pinto

In 1971, the Ford Motor Company was making a new car, called the Pinto, which was supposed to offer low-cost transportation to the American public. Creating a vehicle that could be sold at the cheapest possible price was of primary importance to the vehicle's manufacturer. The car's designers clearly skimped on safety, and when the combustibility of the engine was discovered, the company executives made a chilling, utilitarian decision. It was deemed that making the car as inexpensively as possible was of the greatest priority, as this would result in more profits and more sales. Using a safer design "which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding" would increase the cost of the vehicle to the company and potentially impact demand, given the likely consumer profile of a Pinto buyer (Leggett 1999).

The reformulated design would have cost a measly $11 per car, and the company's own projected analysis indicated that the new design would result in 180 fewer driver deaths (Leggett 1999). But the Ford Company later defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted cost benefit analysis for a corporation to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefits accorded by the additional expenses. "Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million vs. The $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change" (Leggett 1999). Ethically, the company cited the fact that it had its primary responsibility to make a profit for its shareholders, and projected payments to victims would amount to pocket change for Ford.

According to case law, negligence is defined by a 'balancing' analysis: "The balancing approach assumes that if an accident has a very low probability, and there is a cost associated with preventing it, a defendant is not liable if he does not take precautionary measures" (Leggett 1999). Ford, however, knew that the probability of 180 or more deaths was high, and during subsequent litigation, this was revealed in company documents. On a moral level, using Kantian deontological ethics, that when one makes a decision it is as if 'for all time,' the actions of Ford are revolting. Ford put its moral priority on profits, not people's lives. But ironically, Ford's actions proved unprofitable as well as unethical on a 'human' level. Its actions and disregard for the safety of consumers proved to be a public relations disaster from which the company took many years to recover.

Legally, forcing Ford to make costly payments to the families of the victims of its maleficent inaction was good for society as well as for the individuals who were harmed. Companies are less likely to make such criminally negligent risk/benefit calculations when they know the legal system will penalize the organization financially and legally. Only by increasing the hazardous potential of financial loss from acting immorally can the tort system truly protect consumers. Even in utilitarian ethical calculations, forcing Ford to make costly payments to victim's families makes acting as Ford did in the Pinto case 'wrong' even in terms of corporate profitability analysis as the company is potentially harming the profit margins of shareholders as well as unwitting drivers.

Of course, it could be argued that such an ethical rationale is undeniably influenced by the current litigious environment -- few companies would feel, in today's environment that they could operate with impunity, as Ford did in the 1970s. Furthermore, there is an atmosphere of distrust of corporations and corporate managerial decisions in the automotive and financial industry in America today, although the lack of consideration for individual welfare to make a short-term profit was not physically harmful, but economically, in the case of the current economic crisis. Such an environment undoubtedly influences one's ethical distrust of large corporations -- and could result in even higher payments to victims. In fact, many argue the system has gone too far in the opposite direction, and even small infractions can result in high payments to litigants, if there is a perception that the company 'can afford' to pay a great deal of money to an aggrieved plaintiff.