Journal 6 – The Ford Motor case – “What’s legal is not always ethical”

Background of the case:

In May of 1968, the Ford Motor Company, based upon a recommendation by then vice-president Lee Iacocca, decided to introduce a subcompact car and produce it domestically.  In an effort to gain a large market share, the automobile was designed and developed on an accelerated schedule.  During the first few years sales of the Pinto were excellent, but there was trouble on the horizon.

Thereafter, there were a lot accidents associated with the Pinto. The reason was a design flaw regarding the location of its fuel tank. Based on several crash tests, when hit from behind at a certain angle at a certain speed there’s a probability that the fuel filler pipe will disconnect that will result to gas spillage that may lead to dangerous fires.

Crux of the case:

Ford already know that there’s a flaw in their design and what’s worse is that internal documents shows that they have already developed a technology that would greatly reduce the probability of a Pinto igniting after a rear-end collision. They have estimated that it will take them about $11 per unit to make the necessary changes or $137m in total. In making the decision, they have used the risk/benefit analysis and determined that the cost of doing nothing is only $49m. In this regard, they opted to do nothing even though they know this may lead to 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burns, and 2,100 burned vehicles.

Argument:

Ford’s argument is that they made the decision based on what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required them to do so. The risk/benefit approach excuses a defendant if the monetary costs of making a production change are greater than the "societal benefit" of that change.It’s really surprising but what Ford did was really legal and in fact it was based on a ruling done in 1947 in the US.

In spite of it being on legal grounds, Ford was judged on several cases to pay damages. This is because the court argues that “human life should be protected no matter what the cost is.” 

Impact of the case:

As a result of this, many American buyers avoided buying Ford cars that lead to America losing a significant portion of the auto industry in the US and around the world. This is despite the fact that American’s are known to be patriotic consumers, however, as they felt that they may die riding a Pinto they bought foreign cars instead. This paved the way for other manufacturer’s such as Japan to have a significant portion of the industry.

Conclusion:

Not all legal things are ethical. We can argue that during the time that the actual case happened, there’s no way probably that we will have the same answer we have today. This may be because that there’s an existing law predicament at that time suggests that it’s perfectly alright to do nothing.  Furthermore, ethics is not really discussed during that time. However, when faced with decisions like this we must always choose to save human lives. Instead of using our heads, we must use our humanity and ask ourselves if we would be happy to be on the receiving end of this decision. Only then can we make a decision that is ethical, moral, and right even if there’s no set benchmark yet.