Utilitarian Principles Of Ethics: The Ford Pinto Case

English philosopher and founder of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham described the fundamental axiom as the greatest happiness of the greatest number determining the measurement of right and wrong (Burns 46). Utilitarianism can be simply described as producing the greatest happiness or pleasure of the most while at the same time generating the most harm and unhappiness to the least. The utilitarian principles of ethics apply to businesses as well since they are a functioning aspect of society. In utilizing utilitarian principles of ethics, businesses must take caution not to put more emphasis on the happiness of the most (i.e. financial well being) at the cost of less focus on harm (i.e. negative health effects). It is possible, under utilitarianism,

This question is evident in considering the Ford Pinto Case. In an attempt to compete with smaller Japanese imports, Ford Motor Company introduced the Pinto in 1971 in record time for design and production for a new car line. Due to this “accelerated production schedule, the Pinto was not tested for rear-end impact until after it was produced” (DeGeorge 310). After production, the car failed the rear-end impact test due to the design placing the fuel fuel tank in a position in which, if struck from behind at a speed of greater than 20 miles per hour, it would be punctured by a bolt from the bumper. Ford realized through a study that a baffle, costing between $6.65 and $11, could be placed between the bumper and the fuel tank making the Pinto less susceptible to

The issue with Ford’s use of utilitarianism in an attempt to justify the Pinto mistake is that, a) it is wrong to calculate the value of human life in this concept, b) it is wrong to equate the cost for society with the company’s projected losses, and c) it was wrong for Ford to assume the whole of the cost would be absorbed by the projected dead and injured when in fact, the cost of this mistake would be shared by consumers (to include their family), local community, environment, government, Ford employees, Ford Shareholders, Ford management, and even Ford suppliers. Ford could be advocating that since the Pinto offered what was considered adequate transportation at a good price, the danger of fiery rear-impact collisions was justifiable and therefore achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. So, is it that all automobile companies should produce adequate transportation at a good price regardless of safety? Of course not. If all companies subscribed to this belief, the number of consumers would rapidly decrease, hence decreasing the opportunity for the profits being sought to begin with. The problem with his argument is that the theory focuses on the outcome of the action rather than the process, assuming that “the end justifies the means,” and