In the article, Ford Pinto Fuel-Fed Fires, Mark Dowie emphasizes, “Ford Motor Company paid liability for burns deaths and injuries rather than modifying the fuel tank to prevent the fires from occurring (Ford).” This statement clarifies the conception that money corrupts, for it presents a morally conscious environment. After Mark Dowie discovered the true story of the crime and published his findings, it was determined that Ford Motor Company’s motives were murder. Ford Motor Company considered it justifiable to execute their consumers due to their selfishness nature. Even though money can corrupt, is it still a justifiable reason for the crime? If so, how is it? Ford suffered from money addiction, which is a compulsive behavior not motivated …show more content…
In this case, the published document revealed that the presence of money corrupted Ford Motor Company to murder because it was “cheaper for Ford Motor Company to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires from occurring (Ford).” The differences between life and death lied between “installing a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber (Ford).” This proposes the question of if the world would be a better without money? Evidence that Ford Motor Company murdered their consumers on account of money showcases that money influences decisions, but is not the essential cause. The essential cause lies within the evils of humanity. To better the world change must come from within. Money may be deceiving, but it doesn’t pull the
Ripped Fuel is a dangerous supplement and it is important that my cousin and his parents know what Ripped Fuel is and the present and long term effects of using this product. Even at an appropriate age, taking Ripped Fuel can have negative side effects on the person consuming it. A few of these side effects include: insomnia, nervousness, and headaches; all of which are caused by the high doses of caffeine. In more serious cases, there have been reports of heart palpations, tremors, and agitation. A majority of weight loss supplements increase the amount of water consumed by the body and Ripped Fuel is no different. If one does not intake the required amount of fluids while taking Ripped Fuel, their body will experience dehydration.
Money— sweeter than honey but oh so destructive. It facilitates a man’s life, while a lack of it imprisons him in the streets of penury. It raises his social status, while an absence of it leaves him unnoticed. It gives him an aura of superiority and importance among others, while a deficiency of it makes him worthless in society’s eyes. Considering these two roads, most do not take more than a second to decide to chase riches.
It is obvious that executives and managers at both British Petroleum and Transocean have changed the civil right statement “by any means necessary” to reflect their desire to make profits. The unethical behavior that has been engrained within both business cultures calls in the question the ethics of all powerful oil based companies. Leaders must be attentive and adhere to all safety and maintenance concerns. The damage and loss that was incurred could have been avoided if executives would have made more logical and ethically based decisions. Leaders should be able to recognize their psychological tendencies and correct them when making ethical decisions for their businesses. Through striving to make ethical decisions, organizations can set the tone for company morale and success.
With Takata, we see a company attempting to profit from a faulty product. This has lead to the injuries of many people and threatened the lives of countless more. The company was not acting prudently just so they could meet the demands of just-in-time manufacturing. They dove deep into the excess of Aristotle’s mean, depicting the decision makers of the company as greedy and no longer of virtue. Todd Rutherford, the founder of GettingBookReviews.com, can also be labeled the same. He began a company that generated fake reviews of books so as to sway consumers to purchase them. He blatantly went under the guise of an actual consumer and lied in order to generate income. It would be acceptable, under the Doctrine of the Mean, to lie if one’s objective were ultimate happiness. But when one lies in such excess, as Rutherford did, it is not supported. Both of the actions taken by each company were voluntary and not under any external compulsion. The two were acting incontinent with qualification and knowingly making unfair decisions devoid of any rectificatory justice as well. Takata was accepting full price for defective, mishandled and even dangerous products, while Rutherford was taking money for something that is supposed to be a free tool and intended to be made by actual consumers. In addition, Takata took it a step further by vacating distributive justice. When they ran secret tests to determine the safety of certain air bag canisters, Takata immediately became responsible for issuing a recall to all products. But instead, they put consumers in the hands of chance and distributed unequal products to them, even though every customer paid an equal
Greed is the root to evil or at least the motivation behind some corporations making a good, ethical decision. The Ford Motor Company fell into a trap of greed that would cost many human lives. Before the disaster of the Pinto Fires, Ford had a reputation as being the safety pioneer in the automobile industry with additions such as the seat belts. However, as the invention of small cars began to take emerge Ford began to loose market shares to the foreign market. Ford had to do something and quick.
me to several accounts of SHC in the popular press (e.g., an account by a
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.
Set to debut in 1970, the Pinto was Ford’s first attempt in the subcompact car market. The Pinto was a simple, fuel efficient vehicle and performed well against its foreign competitors. Not soon after the Pinto’s release, complaints concerning the car’s rear-end catching fire began to trickle into Ford. After an evaluation of the Pinto, Ford was unable to find a consistent pattern pertaining to the complaints and the topic was dismissed. What brought the Pinto into the public realm was the highly publicized Grimshaw v. Ford civil trial; a woman had died and her passenger severely burned, after the Ford Pinto they were in was rear-ended and caught fire. Ford was forced to pay punitive damages and was scorned in the public spotlight. The trial was followed by the popular and controversial Mother Jones article “Pinto Madness”, written by Mark Dowie. Although the article was a brilliantly written blockbuster, it construed the facts involved in the Pinto case, which led to a public misconception of Ford, the Pinto and corporate ethics in general. In 1978, in an effort to put to rest what had become a publicity nightmare, The Ford Motor Company announced a recall on all early model Ford Pintos. The events leading up to and after the recall, remain to this day, a popular topic in business ethics debate.
Money is the main source of power in the world, but in ways it can be viewed as good or bad depending on the situation. It has a negative connotation when mentioned by the word “acts”. “ Acts” means to perform a fictional role. Which shows that most things involving money are fake. Though humans associate being fake with being morally wrong,but its somehow acceptable if there is a greater power involved. Another definition for acts is to take action;do something. In this case to take an action can be either good or bad. There are many ways to come across money, but nobody cares if it is good or bad because it deals with a greater power.
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. 2007. Moral agency, profits and the firm: Economic revisions to the Friedman theorem. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 209–220.
For as yet scientifically unknown reasons, times occur when an unsuspecting person can just burst into flames and be incinerated. This is referred to in the scientific world as Spontaneous Human Combustion or SHC. There are many documented cases throughout history.
Michael Sandel’s What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets is a set of two lectures that argue whether there are some things money cannot purchase. Sandel addresses this argument by clarifying how markets and market-oriented thinking extends to and affects many aspects of life. These aspects of life were once previously thought to have been uninfluenced by the pressure of markets, and Sandel states that this is a “development that should be resisted” (Sandel, 94). The lectures address two objections to the power of markets, which are coercion and corruption, to describe how these factors affect both free-will and morality associated with making decisions. Corruption, however, is not measured definitively for each situation. In the last lecture, Sandel focuses on corruption through describing different cases where markets corrupt ideals. Ultimately, the lecture does not attempt to denounce commodification, but rather
In today’s society, it does not take astronomical efforts to see the prevalence of greed. The greed for money, power and fame. Within the corporate world, we hear of companies resorting to underhand means to attain more money, more power and when they attain it, the vicious cycle repeats itself. However, their fa...
Friedman, M. “A Friedman Doctrine – The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase Its Profits”, The New York Times Publications, September 13, 1970
Kidder, R, M., (2010), Center for corporate Ethics, Institute for Global Ethics, retrieved on August 08,2010 from www.globalethics.org/ reserve reading from ethics news line