Ethical Decisions in the Ford Pinto Case Essay

In 1972 the national highway Traffic galosh Administration (NHTSA) put a price on life $cc 725 (adjusted for inflation). The hybridizing Motor Company used this data along with former(a) statistical studies to determine the salute benefit of improving the safety of the get across Pinto compared to the cost of loss of life. It was determined that the cost of the suggested improvements outweighed their benefits. This essay aims to address whether cost-benefit outline is a certain tool and what role, if any, it should play in righteous deliberation, in particular when placing a monetary order on a human life.It too disbeliefs what responsibilities Ford had to its guests and what moral rights were in operation, as well as whether it would bemuse made a difference if Ford customers knew about the ending. Discussion Cost-Benefit Analysis, is a systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a roam for two purposes firstly to determine if it is a sound investment (justification/ feasibility and secondly, to see how it compares with alternate projects (ranking/priority assignment).It works by first be the project and any alternatives then identifying, measuring, and valuing the benefits and costs of each. (Benefit-cost synopsis, 2007) The variables employed in Fords cost-benefit analysis were the cost of make the safety changes to millions of vehicles, the statistics quoting quantity of deaths, injuries and vehicle damage , and at long last and most controversially, the total per fatality quoted by the NHTSA, being $200,275. The latter note value is what is being questioned. What is the cost of a life?Can one make up put a cost on a life? The Ford motor company factored the cost of life into the decision that safety improvements outweighed their benefits. establish on the above definition, however, cost benefit analysis was a trustworthy tool, nevertheless for financial decisions only. If Ford had taken a utilitarian onse t to the cost benefit analysis a better moral decision might have been made.Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to seduce the greatest possible balance of level-headed over bad for everyone change by our actions (Shaw, 2009). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few Spock It has besides been defined as firstly, the doctrine that actions are right if they are expedient or for the benefit of a majority, and secondly, the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the point principle of conduct. (dictionary. com) Fords actions could be viewed as morally correct if argued that they benefited more great deal by offering cheap vehicle and increasing shareholders profits, than the few hatful that were killed or injured.But arguing that producing the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions(Shaw, 2009) Fords decisio n was morally incorrect because the benefits and resulting happiness of people benefitting by their decision to sell precariously grievous vehicles would pale in comparison to the unhappiness caused by a death. As was the case, many shareholders benefitted to the detriment of a few people. So the central question is what is the value of a human life and can it be mensurable extrinsically as used in the analysis.Ford met their obligation to shareholders by nidus only on financial variables, but failed in its responsibility to customers in two ways they neglected to factor in to their analysis the infixed value of human life and the impact to the many of their decisions, they also failed to certify customers of the nature of the defect which would most certainly have impacted consumer behaviour. The consumers right to life as well as their right to making informed decisions were undermined.If Ford had not neglected to inform their customers of the defect and indeed allowed the c ustomers to make informed decisions with regards to their products, the risk associated with the defect would have passed from Ford to the customer. Had the consumer been properly informed, they would become responsible for any results stemming from the decision to purchase the vehicle, regardless of whether the cost savings had been passed on to them or not. Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool.As a tool for morality it is useful but flawed as a measure of assigning a value to human life and suffering. Ford had a responsibility to it customers to protect their interests or share information with them to protect their own (the consumers) interests, particularly the most in-chief(postnominal) interest their right to life. It would not have made a moral difference if Ford had passed the savings onto their consumers, as they would have encroached on their customer right to life and their right to make an informed decision.