Did Ford’s decision to neglect to repair the defective design align with ethical guidelines? If so, why? If not, what actions should Ford have taken to meet these standards?
Ford has consistently tried to mend the issues that are violating the ethical guidelines. Ford Pinto is constantly an example of poor business policies. However, there was a misunderstanding on the claim of later filing a claim case. Regarding Pinto Memo, the public believed that it was an internal Ford document that got public but the fact is that the memo was prepared for the NHTSA crash investigation and used as a resource for other car companies in America. In the Grimshaw court case, the accused tried to use this document to display Ford’s lack of security concerns. The judge ruled against acceptability which was never brought to light by the media or any other publication.
Public perception was further diminished by the article of Mother Jones, which was first printed in the Ford Pinto Memo. The article was used along with sensitive terms such as death trap, lethal car, and fire trap which caused suspicion to grow with the image of Ford. Mother Jones's article also estimated that 500 to 900 people were killed in the fire caused due to the design dispute of the fuel tank ("Ford Pinto: A Pre-Law Case-Study in Product Liability", 2013). It was followed by a segment where they had killed 2000 and 10000 injured as they had the intention of building a cheap car. However, research from NHTSA showed that only 27 deaths and 24 burn injuries which were non-fatal were caused due to the back-end fuel tank lamps. Although there was a difference between public opinion and NHTSA research, Ford executives have still completed the risk analysis (Judkins, Cullen, Maakestad & Cavender, 1989).
In 1947, the calculus of negligence, established by the United States v. Carroll Towing Co. provides a way to deal with responsibility and neglect with financial compromises and losses (Feldman & Kim, 2003). Determining the value of a human life is very difficult. Steelworkers were seen in the early 1970s. In the mid-1970s, about 40,000 Americans were susceptible to smoke from coal-fired reactors. As a result, these workers could have succumbed to different forms of cancer. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSAA) laid the rule that it should be compulsory for steel companies to implement current safety practices and regulations. Considering the cost per industry and the number of lives predicted to be saved every year, it is estimated that it costs nearly 4.5 million per person in the form of saved lives.
Kenneth Feinberg was among those who challenged all the traditional valuation practices of life. He is professionally an attorney and is renowned dispute resolute, as he is the person who handled the compensation and valuation of the lives that were lost in the attack of 9/11 as well as the incident of shooting in Virginia (PARLOFF, 2017). He showcased that it was terrible to explain the variation in compensation received by a banker and the lesser compensation received by a firefighter. During the shooting incident in Virginia, Feinberg emphasized similar compensation for all the victims of a case. He remarked that the death of the victim cannot be determined by the financial condition of the person. He questioned how the valuation system of one's life is evaluated.
Thus, what Ford has done is unethical; all organizations have the responsibility to take care of public safety. In a perfect world, the risk analysis and calculating the impact due to negligence should not be taken into account. Thus, Ford's policy of evaluating the worth of life should be displaced with the fact, of how safe their products are. It is the sole responsibility of the company to create unbiased error-free machines and products. Ford must have made sure that their product would not harm any person, and if they had stuck to this code many damages and lives could have been saved.
References
· Feldman, A., & Kim, J. (2003). The Hand Rule and United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Reconsidered. SSRN Electronic Journal.
· Ford Pinto: A Pre Law Case-Study in Product Liability. (2013).
· Judkins, B., Cullen, F., Maakestad, W., & Cavender, G. (1989). Corporate Crime under Attack: The Ford Pinto Case and beyond. Social Forces, 67(3), 818.
· PARLOFF, R. (2017). From 9/11 to Orlando, Ken Feinberg’s Alter Ego in Compensating Victims. The New York Times.
