Ford Pinto Case Anaylsis

In the 1970’s, the Ford Motor Company, along with eventual Ford president Lee Iacocca, came under heavy scrutiny and criticism related to hundreds of deaths and injuries related to a design flaw in the Pinto model car. The dilemma posed is whether or not Ford was unethical in their risk/benefit analysis. Their goal was to keep the Pinto under $2,000 and 2,000 lbs to satisfy the sub-compact car market demand. They met this goal, but at what cost? Mr. Iacocca made a decision by placing a dollar value on human life and human health, concluding that it was of best benefit to the company to not put a safety feature into the car to offset this potential defect. The engineers could have said something, but at what cost? They were under immense pressure to meet an accelerated deadline and keep the specifications of the Pinto to the 2,000 rule set by Iacocca. Another factor at the time was the lack of standard safety regulations, something Ford vehemently fought in the years following the release of the 1970 Pinto. Without regulations, what are the real penalties of cutting corners in safety to sell more cars?

There are multiple stakeholders in this scenario. Ford Motor Company as a whole, first and foremost. They had a decision to make and eventually went with the correct business decision, disregarding public safety or moral consequences. To make a safer car would have cost the company money. Something the market wouldn’t support and just plain wasn’t good business. To ignore test results that pointed to possible catastrophe, Ford gained money in the short term. Another stakeholder is the workers that helped design and test the Pinto. Their dilemma was based upon fear of reprisal. Were they to possibly sacrifice a job at one of the national power companies to take a moral stand for the safety of a small percentage of the population? Refusal to work or delaying production further could very easily have cost them their job.

Based on the ethical...