When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them. Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure …show more content…
The estimated risk to consumers, along with the potential financial cost of loss of life is deemed lower than the financial burden of making the modification to the cars in question. If Ford were to add the extra part to the Pinto, there would have been an added cost in production, which would then have been passed on to the consumers by way of the purchase price for the vehicle; nevertheless, the risk would have been greatly diminished or eliminated. Using this approach, Ford did the right thing. The company was happy because they saved money on production, consumers could purchase what they considered to be a quality vehicle at a reasonable price. This course of action led to a greater yield of happiness than the alternative. Adding the extra part would have resulted in …show more content…
The quality, the happiness, the good thing that you can give the consumer is the end, your sense of duty to do these things is the means. Looking at things from this perspective, Fords actions were unethical. The Kantian idea causes me believe that Ford should have put the potentially life-saving part into the Pinto, not because they have a moral obligation to produce safe vehicles, or because they want praise for looking out for the safety and well-being of their consumers, but because it’s the right thing to do. Clearly, Ford didn’t do that. Based on the case study and the information presented, they allowed financial data and projections to dictate the decision, whether morally right or
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism has one basis, one must chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good; the greatest good for the greatest number. In any instance one may ask, which action will make the most people happy and how long? As a method
The Ford Pinto case was very interesting to be able to tell if the case was morally wrong or not from a utilitarian perspective. In 1968, Ford decided to make a car that was cheap to make and economically friendly to the public. Ford was in competition with Germany and japan. The only problem with the car was that they put the gas tank in a dangerous location where if hit correctly, it would cause the car to combust. They failed the NHTSA crash test, which is 20 mph impact to the rear in 1970, but passed later buy adding a rubber bladder to the engine. This is where ford had to make a very tough decision, they had already sold plenty of cars without the installed bladder, so they could either recall the car to add the bladder
According to (Moore & Parker, 2009, p. 441) Utilitarianism is the view that says “if an act will produce more happiness than will alternatives, it is the right thing to do, and if it will produce less happiness, it would be wrong to do it in place of an alternative that would produce more happiness”.
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
...d, thus being moral is a matter of following God rules. In the case of the disposal, withholding information in order to preserve their profits and minimizing their costs was lying, which was a violation of the rights of the people living on the community. The companies benefited from the people living at Woburn not only by using them to produce their goods, but also to hide the evidence of their illicit acts, clearly violating the Kantianism principles of telling the true and taking advantages of others. In the case of the plaintiff’s lawyer was also observable that money mattered more than the truth this was exemplified by Jan words: “the whole idea of a law suit is to settle or compel the other side to settle. You do that by spending more money than you should obligating them to spend more money than they should……” fact that also violated the deontology approach.
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the purposes of this paper, Utility will be considered to be the tendency to produce happiness. There are two types of Utilitarianism; these are “act” and “rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation. For example, an act utilitarian deciding from a list of possible day trips would sit down and calculate out the utility of each possible decision before coming to a conclusion as to which one was preferable. Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live. Rule utilitarians are not incapable of calculating a decision; they just do not see a need to do it all the time. For example, a rule utilitarian might have some rules like this: in general do not kill, in general do not steal, in general do not lie; but if they found a situation that might except the rule they would do the cal...
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
In today’s fast paced business world many managers face tough decisions when walking the thin line between what’s legal and what’s socially unacceptable. It is becoming more and more important for organisations to consider many more factors, especially ethically, other than maximising profits in order to be more competitive or even survive in today’s business arena. The first part of this essay will discuss managerial ethics[1] and the relevant concepts and theories that affect ethical decision making, such as the Utilitarian, Individualism, Moral rights approach theories, the social responsibility of organisations to stakeholders and their responses to social demands, with specific reference to a case study presenting an ethical dilemma[2], where Mobil halts product sales to a garage, forcing the garage owner to stop selling solvents to young people. The second section of this essay will focus on advice that should be given to any manager in a similar position to the garage owner with relevance to the organisational strategic management, the corporate objective and the evaluation of corporate social performance by measuring economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. It will address whom to think of as stakeholders and why the different aspect could cost more than a manager or an organisation could have imagined.
Toyota issues in automotive industry resulted from a lack of moral and ethical obligations to loyal customers. In fact, people encounter ethics at one time or another. A business expectation is to act in manner upholding society values. According to authors Trevino and Nelson, (2004) states, “a set of moral principals or values, or the principals, norm, and standards of conduct governing a group or individual.” On the other hand, three ethical criteria determined in this discussion like obligation, moral ideas, and consequences which this article highlights an ethical dilemma with automobiles makers.
Although traditionally applied to business ethics, the ethical decision-making process is of vital importance in law enforcement as well. Research recognizes several ethical decision-making models and factors believed to influence the process of decision-making. A history of ethical decision-making, including various theories, models and influential factors demonstrates the importance of the ethical decision-making process and how it can be applied to law enforcement.