The Ford Pinto free essay sample

Therefore, totell someone that there is a certain price for their life is a preposterous notion. There are numerous things which individuals consider priceless. Ford thought they could get away with a dangerous automobile by paying off those lawsuits from people who were injured and the families of the dead. Ford thought it was more cost effective not to fix the dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people. In the criticism of using a number, Ford seemed to blindly follow the dictated numbers without giving any extra consideration to the fact that it in face was a human life they were quantifying. It is hard to achieve values without norms and we have ineffective norms without values. Norms are rules that prescribe what concrete actions are required, permitted or forbidden. These are rules and agreement about how people are supposed to treat each other. Everyone has the right to have a safe and healthy workplace or have the right to expect product they purchase to be safe. We will write a custom essay sample on The Ford Pinto or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Lesson learned is that they shouldn’t be ignoring an obviously dangerous condition and shouldn’t be putting a value on human life. Question 2 Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What a role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study. Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way? ANS: Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool for businesses to use in deciding what actions to take. As Friedman has argued, the role of business is to make money and a cost benefit analysis is a very useful tool in figuring out how to do so. When it comes to morals, however, cost-benefit analysis is much less useful unless one believes in utilitarianism. For other understanding of morality, a person should not be asking â€Å"what do I gain and lose† when trying to figure out what to do. People should be asking â€Å"what’s the right thing to do†. Cost-benefit analysis can’t really help with that. An examination of the Ford Pinto Case, the cost-benefit analysis, will help raise the awareness and understanding of the diminishing value of ethics in the business world. When Ford conducted the cost-benefit analysis, it analyzed what the potential benefit would be if they fixed every Pinto by installing the baffle piece. The result produced from the cost-benefit analysis may be interpreted to say that it would have cost Ford $137 million to fix the Pintos by installing the baffle piece when it would have cost $49. 5 million to leave the cars alone and deal with the expenses of injuries and deaths from the crashes. Ford decided that, because it would be cheaper, it would not install the baffle piece. According to De George, Ford did not tell the consumer that the car was not as safe as others, nor did it inform consumers that they had the option of purchasing the baffle piece (De George, 1995). In Ford contention is that these decision are moral ones, and that cost-benefit analysis is therefore in appropriate because it requires the adoption of an unsatisfactory moral system. These include harm, honesty, justice and rights. So no harm should be done to others, people should not deceived and their rights to life, free expression and safety should be acknowledged. Because this case involved human lives, Ford would have been better off if it had used a deontological approach with a few rules in mind. Ford should have been primarily concerned with maximizing shareholder wealth by way of a concern for the safety of its consumer and by maintaining a good public image rather than saving money. If Ford had been concerned about the shareholder’s wealth, it would have considered the long term effects of making a subcompact car that was not safe for its consumers (Gitman,2006). In essence, Ford should have been more concerned with the principle that with the results. The principle is simple: decision should be made in the best interest of the shareholder. In conclusion, the evaluation of good and bad consequences provides one way of ensuring that companies consider the morality of their actions, which may suggest that utilitarianism can be positive influence for ethical business practice as long as the true costs can be accurately determined and the right value placed on human life. Question 3 Speculate about Kant’s response to the idea of placing a monetary value on a human life. Is doing so ever morally legitimate? ANS: No, it is not morally legitimate to placing a monetary value on a human life. Kant’s categorical imperative can be formulated as an action is morally right if and only if the person doing it does not use others merely as a means to an end, but respects and develops their capacity to act for themselves. In other words, humans have equal dignity and should never be deceived, manipulated or exploited for any purpose. There can never be a moral cost-benefit analysis that allows corporate leaders and their corporations to unjustly exploit or endanger employees, customers and local communities exclusively as means to corporate profit or in the case of Ford situation as a means to save expending resourced to remedy a defective product or not risking corporate profits and reputation by recalling a potentially dangerous product. In addition, it is that trading off lives for any amount of money is wrong, because doing so fails to respect the essential worth of every human life. Is seems unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would cost too much to prevent it. In Kant’s will recognize and endorse that sentiment, which human beings have dignity and not mere price which also unconditionally attribute a worth to persons that cannot be quantified and is not subject to trade-offs.