Introduction
Ford Company is renowned company that deals with the manufacture of automobiles and has been operational since the year 1913. Ever since the time of its establishment it has gained popularity in United States America where it was first situated and across the world where there many outlets for its motor vehicles due to the fact it has been producing high quality vehicles. Fords Company has managed to make automobiles that are highly competitive in the motor vehicle industry that is quite flooded with numerous brands from different companies.
However this fame has at one time or another been soiled due to some mistakes that the company has done which actually has been very detrimental to the welfare Ford Company. For instance, in the year 1970 Ford Company came up with an idea of designing and making a new state of art model of that would be at good position to compete with other brands of the same caliber. This model had so many eccentric conditions in the manner it was designed and made hence therefore causing so problems to crop up particularly pertaining on its safety levels. This paper will therefore succinctly discuss whether Ford Company adhered to the utilitarian ethical approach.
Utilitarian analysis on the introduction of Ford pinto
The decision to introduce this new model of the Ford Brand of motor vehicles referred to as the Ford Pinto which was aimed at competing with other models from different companies in the sophisticated class created another major loophole. This mistake involved the position where the fuel tank was placed which was predisposed the car user and the public in general to great danger. The fuel tank was situated at the far rear end next to the bumper from the inside contrary to the normal positioning which is done some point away from the rear bumper. The placement of the fuel tank close to the bumper led to so many dangers that were bound to unfold in an event of a road accident that particularly involves a car hitting this model from the rear end. There was a likelihood that when such an accident occurred and the vehicle happened to be hit severely to a point that the bolt holding the bumper pierced the tank the fuel could leak hence therefore raising the probability of an explosion happening mostly due to the fact that the exhaust pipe is within the proximity of the fuel tank (Charles 243).
Such an accident was bound to happen if this model of the Ford brand was impacted from behind by another vehicle moving at a velocity of 20miles per hour. This could be dangerous to a point of serious injuries or even fatality to the person using the Ford pinto and even the person or people in the car that hit this model plus the other road users close to the scene of the accident. It was therefore very obvious and clear that the decision that the executive team of Ford Company made did not adhere to the stipulations of the utilitarian ethical approach of formulating policies and carrying out certain actions that can in one or another affect the public or else the person who is intended to benefit from the implementation of such plans. It was therefore very crucial for the company to take all the required and adequate time to design their this new product, produce it and take it through thorough tests to ensure that it was fit to be introduced to the public.
Undeniably, Ford Company did fail to adhere to the Utilitarian approach regarding the amount of time it takes for a new model car to be produced and tested for a safe drive. The pinto car that was produced in less time than required was expected to be involved in a competition and also to “beat the market” that the Japanese imports had already taken over. This means that before a car is produced it has to go through many processes in order to prove effective for safe drive; therefore the 25 months that Pinto took were less for a quality production and designing of a car (Brian 145).
The production process of a car according to the Ford Pinto case was harp-harzardly carried out. Before a car is proven safe for a drive it has to undergo numerous test drives which was not done in the Pinto case. Therefore the consequences and challenges that could either be directly or indirectly affect the public were very predisposing meaning that the produced car could be very hazardous to the public. It therefore becomes clear that the utilitarian approach was not adhered when Pinto car was being produced.
The accelerated production of Pinto car also meant that the car was not tested for the rear –end impact which meant that if the car could be hit from the back-end, it could explode considering even where the fuel tank had been placed. Another unethical issues was that at that time their lacked a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that could check on the rear-end impact. This was a standard safety measure that checked on the well being of the public. Particularly, production of Pinto car did not adhere to the Utilitarian approach (Douglas 254).
Works cited
Charles E. Harris, Michael S. Pritchard, Michael Jerome Rabins. Engineering ethics: concepts
and case, Edition4, Chicago: Cengage Learning, 2009
Douglas Birsch, John H. Fielder. The Ford Pinto case: a study in applied ethics, business, and
technology, SUNY series, case studies in applied ethics, technology, and society
Case Studies in Applied Ethics Series, California : SUNY Press, 1994.
Brian L. Nelson. Law and ethics in global business: how to integrate law and ethics into
corporate governance around the world, Chicago: McGraw Hill Professional, 2006.
