Ethical Decisions in the Ford Pinto Case Essay

In 1972 the national track Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) countersink a price on brio sentence $200 725 (adjusted for inflation). The traverse Motor conjunction used this data along with other(a) statistical studies to dress the apostrophize eudaemonia of improving the safety device of the intersection Pinto compared to the bell of loss of sustenance. It was determined that the appeal of the suggested improvements out counterweighted their gains. This set rough aims to address whether cost-benefit epitome is a logical tool and what role, if any, it should play in example deliberation, especially when placing a monetary apprize on a world life.It to a fault questions what responsibilities Ford had to its clients and what moral chastens were in operation, as well as whether it would take a crap throw away a difference if Ford customers knew about the termination. Discussion Cost-Benefit Analysis, is a systematic work for calculating and comparing be nefits and costs of a learn for two purposes firstly to determine if it is a sound investment (justification/feasibleness and secondly, to see how it compares with alternate projects (ranking/priority assignment).It whole shebang by first defining the project and any alternatives then identifying, measuring, and valuing the benefits and costs of each. (Benefit-cost compend, 2007) The variables industrious in Fords cost-benefit analysis were the cost of make the safety changes to millions of vehicles, the statistics quoting quantity of deaths, injuries and vehicle change , and lastly and most controversially, the total per exigency quoted by the NHTSA, being $200,275. The latter protect is what is being questioned. What is the cost of a life?Can one even determine a cost on a life? The Ford motor beau monde f boutored the cost of life into the decisiveness that safety improvements outweighed their benefits. Based on the above definition, however, cost benefit analysis was a consistent tool, but for financial decisions unless. If Ford had interpreted a utilitarian approach to the cost benefit analysis a fracture moral decision might have been made.Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should al ways act to produce the greatest possible sense of equilibrium of good over bad for everyone abnormal by our actions (Shaw, 2009). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few Spock It has also been outlined as firstly, the doctrine that actions are by estimablesly if they are profitable or for the benefit of a majority, and secondly, the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes joy, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the directive principle of conduct. (dictionary. com) Fords actions could be viewed as virtuously correct if argued that they benefited more people by offering cheap vehicle and change magnitude allotholders profits, than the few people that were killed or injured. nevertheless arguing that producing the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone touch by our actions(Shaw, 2009) Fords decision was morally maltreat because the benefits and resulting happiness of people benefitting by their decision to sell precariously unsafe vehicles would pallid in comparison to the unhappiness caused by a death. As was the case, many shareholders benefitted to the disadvantage of a few people. So the cardinal question is what is the appreciate of a human life and can it be heedful extrinsically as used in the analysis.Ford met their obligation to shareholders by focussing only on financial variables, but failed in its responsibility to customers in two ways they neglected to factor in to their analysis the intrinsic value of human life and the impact to the many of their decisions, they also failed to asseverate customers of the nature of the blemish which would most for sure have impacted consumer behaviour. The consumers right to life as well as their right to making informed decisions were undermined.If Ford had not neglected to inform their customers of the defect and thus allowed the customers to make informed decisions with regards to their products, the jeopardize associated with the defect would have passed from Ford to the customer. Had the consumer been justly informed, they would become responsible for any results stemming from the decision to purchase the vehicle, regardless of whether the cost nest egg had been passed on to them or not. Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool.As a tool for morality it is useful but flawed as a measure of assigning a value to human life and suffering. Ford had a responsibility to it customers to protect their interests or share information with them to protect their own (the consumers) interests, oddly the most important interest their right to life. It would not have made a moral difference if Ford had passed the savings onto their consumers, as they w ould have encroached on their customer right to life and their right to make an informed decision.