Buy custom Pinto Case essay What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? So the central question is; what is the value of a human life and can it be measured extrinsically as used in the analysis.
Moreover, if Ford told the potential customers about their decision, it would make them turn away and not bother to buy the Pinto at all.
Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision, what moral principles do you think they would invoke? Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool. Consequently, customers own the rights to expect the vehicles to function accordingly.
GM knew about the hazardous tanks, yet decided not to recall the products to save the expenses involved. It also questions what responsibilities Ford had to its customers and what moral rights were in operation, as well as whether it would have made a difference if Ford customers knew about the decision.
From the perspective of utilitarianism, the morally right action is the one that provides the most happiness for all those affected. As a tool for morality it is useful but flawed as a measure of assigning a value to human life and suffering.
The consumer's right to life as well as their right to making informed decisions were undermined. The Ford motor company factored the cost of life into the decision that safety improvements outweighed their benefits. The principle is simple: If companies would balance the production capability and production Covey, the end-result would be satisfying.
Had the consumer been correctly informed, they would become responsible for any results stemming from the decision to purchase the vehicle, regardless of whether the cost savings had been passed on to them or not. Are there limits to how far automakers must go in the name of safety?
The latter value is what is being questioned. It works by first defining the project and any alternatives; then identifying, measuring, and valuing the benefits and costs of each. As was the case, many shareholders benefitted to the detriment of a few people.
It is absolutely wrong to sell an unsafe product especially with the current technology. It is totally unsatisfactory since Ford officials thought that assigning any dollar figure to any human being can keep them stay morally upright, which is not the case.
Is business bluffing ethical? 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. These include harm, honesty, justice and rights.
Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Perhaps they did not allow selling the Pinto to the public if they only thought of driving it themselves.
Do you think Ford did this? Retrieved,from http: 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.
Is doing so ever morally legitimate? This maxim proves that Ford treats humans as end in themselves. If Ford had taken a utilitarian approach to the cost benefit analysis a better moral decision might have been made.
Would manufacturers be willing to abide by it if the positions were reversed and they were in the role of consumers? Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd.Evaluate from a moral perspective the "cost/benefit" analysis conducted by Ford.
One may ask what do we need ethics in business for? To answer this question, we need to know what ethics is, as well as, what impact it has on businesses, people and relations.
The Ford Pinto case is mentioned in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis, yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity. The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation?
Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study. The Ford Pinto Essay. The Ford Pinto: An Ethical Mishap LS - Smith Unit 2 Assignment - Case Study Due: 17 January The Ford Pinto case study provided an. Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, by using the lowest cost to obtain the biggest profit out of it.
However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice human life in exchange of paying a lower production costs/5(1). Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, which determines the best course of action by comparing the costs and benefits generated through a particular situation.
The example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study doesn’t provide a comprehensive approach that leads to a morally right action/5(2).Download