Business Ethics
Introduction
In 1960’s Ford Company produced an automobile to compete with the Chinese sub combat, which was increasingly becoming popular in the U.S. Ford motor company and the manufacture of Ford Pinto, designed a car that had design flaws as shown by crush tests. The crush tests show defects, and raise many ethical questions in regards to responsibilities of the engineers involved and all the stakeholders. Also, ethical issues are seen in regards to the role of engineers in issuing a recall. Iacocca argued that Ford had to put out its alternative to the VW Beetle or else the Japanese could capture the entire American sub combat company. Afterwards started a rush program to manufacture the pinto’s.
There was a speed-up in the styling, design, advance engineering, product planning and quality assurance. All these processes normally have a timeframe that is flexible and can sometimes be carried out simultaneously. 18 months are the fixed time frame of tooling, which is normally carried out after all processes are over. However, in Iacocca’s plan, product development and tooling were done simultaneously. The crush tests revealed serious gas tank defects, but it was too late as tooling was underway (Dowie 1977).
Accordingly, they set an ambitious idea for production and manufacture of Pinto in two years. The car would be sold at a retail price of $2000, weighing 2000 pounds and was to be introduced in the market in 25 months. The gas tank was to be placed between the differential and the rare bumpers after different considerations. With the tank in this position, the Pinto model was exposed to possible collisions. This is because rear collisions push could push the tank forward, causing the exposed bolts to rapture the tank (Tittle 2000 p. 134). The engineers of Ford knew about the design and its susceptibility to collisions. Iacocca was not informed about the unsafely gas tank by the engineers. However, safety was not a concern to him, as he kept saying ‘’safety does not sell’’. The product objectives of the sub -combat, only contained objectives which were beneficial to the company, without considering the safety of the users.
The Ford Company was faced with a dilemma in regards to their profits as compared to the societal benefits of manufacturing the Pinto design. Later they also had to determine whether making changes to the Pinto design was greater than the societal benefit. However, they legally decided not to make the changes that would cost them more money. The legality of their choice not to make the changes does not necessarily mean it was ethical.
Cultural relativism asserts that rights and wrongs are cultural- specific, and related to one's culture, customs and beliefs. What is moral in one society can be considered immoral in another. Therefore, Ford can argue that they were not wrong as they did what was legal, and their culture as a company is to act according to their goals and in accordance to the laws of the land. However, it seems unethical to allow people to get seriously injured or die just because the cost to prevent such deaths and injuries are considered too much. On the other hand, this concept does not prescribe a universal moral concept; thus no one can judge the norms of another society. Therefore, considering this concept, one cannot judge the other, and one society cannot pass judgment on another society. Therefore, whether Ford was right or wrong, based on this theory, will vary form one society to another, depending on various reasons. Other people value life over anything and it would be unethical to endanger people for the amount of money; they might have been able perhaps to pay to afford the safety. Accordingly, the Ford society might argue that they are ethical as they followed the law, and perhaps the government should be blamed for not putting proper laws in place (Daskal, 1991 p. 197).
Teleological concept asserts that things are done with a purpose to achieve a goal. In teleological concepts, actions are explained by results. According to this theory, what is morally correct depends on the consequences of our choices. Choices having correct consequences are moral, and those having negative consequences are immoral. Therefore, based on this theory, Ford can be said to be unethical and immoral as their choice to make the cheaper Pinto led to a lot of deaths.
Deontological ethics judge’s actions based on adherence to rules and action is more important as compared to consequences. Based on this theory, Ford can be judged t be ethically right, and the consequences do not matter. Ford adheres to legal requirements, and the engineers are qualified, thus based on deontology, they are morally right. The theory also argues that what is right can be judged on the basis of good will of the person performing the given actions, and the right motivation. Certainly, Ford had the right motivation to also make profits and to compete with the Chinese company in exploiting the market. However, the consequences are later negative, which Kantianism (deontology) asserts that, is not wrong as much as it was done out of good will and respect of the law. Therefore, based on deontology theory, Ford was ethical as they followed duty and adhered to laws.
Conclusion
Organizations should make decisions based on what is ethical and does well for the majority good of people. Ford management decisions regarding pinto, can be seen only to promote their good and inconsiderate on effects to the users. Pinto’s case considers economics as the sole consideration, and there is no consideration of the general good. One can associate the evil with catastrophic rear-end collisions, leading to deaths, while ford does good to itself by saving millions by not installing the $6 part, and even later install it at a low dealership.
References
Dascal, M. (1991). Cultural relativism and philosophy: North and Latin American perspectives.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Dowie, M. (1977). Pinto madness. Mother Jones, 2(8), 1977.
Tittle, P. (2000). Ethical issues in business: Inquiries, cases, and readings. Peterborough, Ont:
Broadview Press.
