Ford Pinto: An Ethical Analysis

The Ford Pinto was rushed into production in August of 1970 by Ford’s new president, Lee Iacocca, insisting that without a suitable alternative to the VW Beetle the Japanese would “capture the entire American subcompact market."  Iacocca ordered the development of the Pinto to be designed within an unusually short production planning period in order to feature the car in the showrooms with the 1971 models. Tooling had an especially short time frame and so the machines that make the car parts were produced before the car was effectively tested. Safety was not mentioned in the product objectives, as Iacocca had no concern for safety according to his statement that “safety doesn't sell." Iacocca’s lack of concern for safety resulted in a faulty gas tank system that cost the lives of many. Crash tests conducted prior to production revealed that “eight of eleven Pintos had suffered potentially catastrophic gas tank ruptures on impact. The fuel tanks of the three other cars had survived only because they'd been shielded from a set of studs that did the puncturing."



Although the defects were discovered through several crash tests, the tools were already developed and safety alteration were dismissed because of a goal set by Iacocca called the “limits of 2,000.” This restricted the weight of the Pinto to 2,000 pounds and the price to $2,000. Even a small, inexpensive plastic piece that effectively improved the safety of the car was considered “extra cost and extra weight.” Economic pressures influenced tight price elasticity on subcompacts, and Iacocca understood that every dollar mattered. An anonymous Ford engineer commented that "this company is run by salesmen, not engineers; so the priority is styling, not safety."  This profit-priority mindset resulted in the production of a car that could be seen as a mobile bomb, waiting for a minor accident to claim the lives that Ford anticipated as an expected cost in monetary terms. Ford rounded off the value of a human life established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to $200,000, and determined that the cost to strengthen gas tank integrity outweighed the cost of the deaths and injuries resulting from not making these improvements. Ford fought to protect profits at the expense of human life, which they valued at a mere $200,000.

Stakeholder Analysis

Key stakeholders affected by the Ford Pinto dilemma include executive management, product engineers, company employees, corporate shareholders, Ford’s competition, federal auto-safety bureaucrats, political lobbyists, and target market consumers. Executive management anticipated the legal repercussions and found it more profitable to fight allegations and legislation rather than improve the safety of their product. Company engineers and other employees as well as shareholders and other profiting stakeholders benefited financially from the executive decision to take the more profitable route; although it could be argued that by not resisting, all knowledgeable stakeholders were equally morally responsible as the one who made the decision. The most important stakeholder in any company is the customer, as they are the blood that runs through the veins and gives life to an idea. It is the duty of a company to serve their target market, which to some extend Ford did do. Ford built a vehicle that consumers could afford with the utility that they desired; however, their lack of concern for safety endangered the lives of their customers which leads to ethical considerations regarding the value of human life versus the value of company profit.

Analysis Based on Ethical Theories

This dilemma could be viewed from various theoretical perspectives in regards to ethics. We see here a clash between two opposing cultural perspectives: That of a corporate culture mindset which prioritizes profit as the highest value, and one of an ethical perspective where it is seen as a social norm to value human life above financial gain. It is reasonable to assume that the average person would find it immoral to take the life of another human being for financial gain. Legally, it is a very punishable offence to take the life of another human being, but because of crafty rhetoric and “the bottom line,” white collar crime is often overlooked or viewed in a different light than when an individual commits homicide. A corporation’s legal obligation to prioritize the financial interests of its shareholders above all else has created very opposing cultural values in our society. On one hand, we value human life as a social agreement that we each value our own life and therefore have a duty to respect the lives of others to preserve the right to our own. On the other hand, we have designed an economic system that incentivizes social progress with personal gain and competition, making our work values different than our personal values. In order to sustain the corporations that provide us with provisions, we embrace the corporate value of maximizing profit, disregarding personal values that contradict many decisions that are made in the name of profit.

Considering this contradiction from a deontological perspective, Kant’s categorical imperative states that one should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."  We can assume that those who commit white collar crime for the sake of profit value their own life based on the premise that they work to gain this profit for the sustainment of their company which provides them with the resources to sustain and improve their own lives. Since individually, the people who make decisions that put the lives of others in danger value their own life, they could not will that this be a universal law because they would not want their own life put in danger. Based on our own individual rights and expectations of society, we have a duty to maintain a sense of social responsibility in our personal lives as well as our work lives; even to the extent of resisting when an unethical decision is being executed that endangers the lives of others as seen with the Ford Pinto.

A utilitarian could look at Ford’s case from several perspectives, depending on one’s outlook as to what would create “the greatest happiness or good for the greatest number of people."  It could be argued that the executive decision to maximize profit while disregarding safety concerns would produce the greatest good because more people will own a cheaper vehicle with greater utility because of the design which outweighs the loss of relatively few lives compared to those who don’t have catastrophic accidents. It could also be argued as morally permissible based on an economical argument that shows how more people benefit than the number of people who are harmed. However, if human life is considered invaluable as each of us perceive our own life to be, these types of arguments quickly lose integrity.

Conclusion

The case of Ford’s Pinto has been called “a manifestation of broad legal, social-structural, and ideological changes… leading to an increasing intolerance of white collar crime."  It is a perfect example of white collar crime where profit is prioritized over ethical concerns. To monetize human life for the purpose of a cost-benefits analysis clearly lacks ethical consideration, as life is invaluable and cannot be translated into monetary terms without dehumanizing individuals as nothing more than consumers meant to generate revenue to fuel an economy that is meant to serve society as a means of allowing specialization and trade to improve the quality of life for all. Many lives have been lost as a consequence of incentivizing social progress with personal gain rather than social gain. It is true that profit allows the existence of companies that bring forth innovations and luxuries, improving the quality of lives for many; however, if our only concern is profit then we perceive the consumers that fuel the economy as mere cash cows meant to be exploited rather than served.


References

Baura, G. D. (2006). Engineering Ethics : An Industrial Perspective. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.

Bonamici, K. (2005). 1972: Ford decides to let the Pinto explode. (cover story). Fortune, 151(13), 77-80.

Bennet, S. C. (1990). DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MOVEMENT AGAINST CORPORATE CRIME. CORPORATE CRIME UNDER ATTACK: THE FORD PINTO CASE AND BEYOND. By Francis T. Cullen, William J. Maakestad & Gray Cavender. New York University Law Review, 65871.

Gilbert, J.(2012). Ethics for managers: Philosophical foundations and business realities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dowie, M. (1977, September). Pinto madness. Mother Jones, Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness