The Pinto Case Study

Professional in large organization: Loyalty, dissent, and whistleblowing
People have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to the public that might come with little cost or at a cost of their professional career. Whistleblowing is an act of expressing misconduct, alleged dishonesty or illegal activities either within an organization or publicly by an individual or a group. In an organization, there are different sectors that perform their specific tasks. As a human, we all have a moral obligation to act on behalf of public good whether we are professionals or not. Whistleblowing, a topic of controversy generally raises several ethical issues in the society because of its multifaceted nature and the different perceptions of people towards

I agree with the author De George’s claim that management should be the one who is liable of consequences not the engineers. Analyzing ‘The Pinto’ situation on the basis of professionalism, the Ford engineer performed at their best to design the Pinto within the timeframe assigned to them. Apart from designing, they had recommended to add $6.95 part to minimize the possible risk to public, considering public safety; however it was the management that failed to perform their moral duty and made wrong decision which would later cost them a lot of money, it’s market value and more importantly those precious lives. This suggests the prevalence of authoritarian management in the society where there are constraints on proper design, authority, and professional roles. In fact, it is true that to be loyal is an ethical duty of employee because it strengthens the relationship between the employer and colleagues. But it is necessary to understand the true meaning and value of loyalty.. For example, if an employer who is acting immorally is not acting in her best interests and the employee blows the whistle realizing the fact that it is even more immoral to not report and to ignore the immoral conduct; it would not be the violation of loyalty towards employer because that might prevent someone from engaging in self-destructive

In contrast to Larmer, DeGeorge states that there should be a certain rule of thumb before any workers go in public to disclose information about the safety of a product. I would analyze the Larmer’s instance as a positive attitude of employee towards his employer. Even though the act of disclosing information about the unethical issues sounds disloyal, it can be of significantly important in turning the table of wrongdoing to withdrawl of those practices. However, it is morally wrong to accuse somebody without enough evidences,which DeGeorge defines as a rule of thumb. As he states, “ if the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable; if employees make their concerns known to their superiors; and if getting no safisfaction from their immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors. If they still get no action, they are morally permitted to make public their views; but they are not morally obliged to do so.” I think DeGeorge is correct becuasue whistleblowing should also progress in a natural course of cause and effect. Only when there is enough grounds to justify or clarify the wrongdoing, there is possibility of successful whistleblowing that ensures safety of