The Ford Pinto case raised an ethical dilemma concerning corporate wrong-doing and withholding information. Lee Iacocca, the Ford company’s president, was accused of disregarding the need to improve the safety of Pinto cars due to the increased cost. The cost-benefit analysis was used to conclude that the additional expenses to correct the design flaw was unjustified, which led to numerous victims of collision-caused fires (Aceves, 2018). However, Lee Iacocca should not have been prosecuted criminally, at least not personally, since he was not the only individual responsible for the compromised safety and consumers’ deaths.
In particular, numerous people participated in the design and production of the Pinto model. According to Walker, “specific cognitive, situational, or institutional factors may have influenced” the project engineers’ decision-making, which implies that the final judgment was impacted by various aspects and individuals (p. 2). The trial showed that Ford employees knew about the crash test results and the flaw in the tank design but withheld the information. Hence, the responsibility of the whole company should be considered. Furthermore, the safety standard by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the need for cars to withstand 20 mph rear-end impact had not yet been in effect at the time (Walker, 2019). Generally speaking, despite the obvious risk and crash test results, the company and Iacocca acted within safety principles.
Finally, the cost-benefit analysis is another issue that raised public ethical concerns. The idea of pricing human life and suffering seems outrageous and wrong. Nevertheless, as per Aceves (2018), the “cost-benefit analysis is a commonly used decision-making methodology that facilitates the allocation of state resources and the selection of economically efficient policies” (p. 431). Ford’s president used it as a tool to make business decisions, which was a usual practice. At the same time, from the moral perspective of the case, Ford and Lee Iacocca were wrong to compromise safety and should have been held responsible for the damage.
References
Aceves, W. J. (2018). Cost-benefit analysis and human rights. St.John’s Law Review, 92(3), 431-451. Web.
Walker, H. W. (2019). Behavioral ethics and engineers: Factors affecting decision making in cases involving risk and public safety. American Society for Engineering Education-ASEE. Web.