The Ford Pinto Case
The Ford Pinto Case is arguably one among the most controversial cases on matters of ethics and criminality. While some think that the case is the perfect definition of legality versus ethics, other think that this is more a matter of ethical conduct in the corporate world. The case revolves around the design of the subcompact Ford Pinto Car that was designed in the late 1960s and grew popular in the early 1970s. The crash tests on the car indicated that the design was not satisfactory as it exposed the users of the car to potential burn injuries and deaths in the event of a rear impact by any car moving at a speed of 20 miles per hour (Jennings 516). This was due to the reason that the cars tank was just a few inches from the rear plate.
Research indicated that at a cost of $11 per car, the flaws could be rectified boosting the safety of the users. A cost benefit analysis indicated that the total cost of rectifying the flaws would be $137 million while the benefit would be approximately $49.5 million. For this reason, the directors opted not to rectify the flaws (Jennings 517). Whether or not the executives of Ford should have been punished criminally is a matter of contention. Foremost, the directors were acting within the confines of the law. Secondly, the executives were acting in the best interest of the organization – minimizing costs as a way of expanding the shareholders’ wealth. To this end, the executives of the organization were not criminally liable, but could be judged by the moral standards of professional conduct.
In my opinion, therefore, the executives should not have been criminally punished because this case was more of an ethical dilemma than a criminal case. What makes this more a matter of ethics than a crime is the fact that the executives, in their decision making, tried to quantify human life. Placing a price tag on human life is the utmost expression of unethical conduct and irresponsibility. Perhaps the most effective action that the jury could have taken was to issue a comprehensive court order instructing the organization to recall all Pintos that had been sold. These could only be released after a satisfactory rectification had been made. Ultimately, therefore, the executives, for whose actions the organization is vicariously liable, should have exempted human life from the quantifiable items at the time of doing the cost benefit analysis
Occupy Wall Street, 2012
The occupy wall street protests throughout the country a couple of years ago were a sign that Americans were not happy with the extent to which the large corporations were influencing the decisions made by the government (Brent and Lewis 727). The decisions made by the government, such as the GM bailout, were, according to the anti-consumerist movement, a catalyst for social inequality and economic disparity. While this is the case, it is difficult to term the corporations as criminals. There exists a very thin line between white collar crime and unethical conduct in the big corporations.
Speaking of law and ethics, the organizations in whose direction the occupiers of Wall Street were pointing fingers, were acting within the confines of the law. As much as what they were doing was not ethically justifiable, it was not legally unacceptable. It was more a matter of economic and social inequality than illegality. Ultimately, therefore, the Occupy Wall Street Protests do not render the organizations criminal.
Works Cited
Brent, Edward E, and J S. Lewis. Learn Sociology. , 2014. Print.
Jennings, Marianne. Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
