Ford_Pinto_Case

In the ‘Ford Pinto Case Study’, its obvious clear that Ford upper management and engineers did not plan to make an unsafe our unreliable product, and more than likely the final of their product resulted mainly from, the speedy design and the production schedule of the Pinto. Ford was in an era at the time where government safety standards were non existent, and Ford was not responsible or obligated to follow such safety guidelines in regards to the Ford Pinto. Ford took advantage of this and I believe since there were measures in safety Ford started to produce, and the market to sell what we called now the Ford Pinto. Additionally, the faulty cost-benefit analysis played a role as well. However, in my estimation, Ford management endangers the integrity of its own safety practices for the small sake of profit. Not only did Ford strongly disregard the industry safety standard for rear-end impact testing on the Pinto, but willing choose to subject its customers to the possibility of injury or death in their pursuit for a share of the small car market. Fords ethical perspective falls in line with that of Utilitarianism, to which the decision made serves the greater amount of good for those affected by the decision, and views its actions as having no instinctive value even when considering the obvious consequences. Ford had several options at its disposal to prevent, minimize, and at least warn the consumers of the potential risk and harm associated with the Ford Pinto. Despite these options, Ford chose failed to mention the potential risk or death for its customers to the public. Fords reluctance to do so was possibly due to the potential negative reaction the Pinto may have received from the general public. In this case it clearly highlighted the conflict between a corporate profit and product safety.