Question

In the 1970’s the Ford Motor Company sold its subcompact Pinto model with known design defects. In particular, the gas tank’s design and location led to rupture, leaks and explosion in low-speed, rear-impact collisions. Fifty-nine people burned to death in Pinto accidents. Ford had conducted a cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of fixing the defects ($11 per vehicle) versus their potential liability for law- suits on behalf of accident victims, where Ford placed the value of a human life at $200,000. Ford eventually recalled 1.4 million Pintos to fix the gas tank problem at a total cost of $30 to $40 million. In addition the company ultimately paid out millions more in liability settlements and incurred substantial damage to its reputation.
A) Critique Ford’s actions from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
B) One well-known ethical theory, utilitarianism, suggests that an act is ethically justified if it results in the "greatest good for the greatest number" when all relevant stakeholders are considered. Did Ford’s cost-benefit analysis validly apply this theory?
C) What should engineers do when the product they are designing has a known safety defect with an inexpensive remedy?

Answer 1

Answer and Explanation:

1. The national society of professional engineers code of ethics was violated by Ford motors by selling the pinto model which they already knew had manufacturing defects. The cars had issues that were mostly due to fuel tank fires. The pinto was recalled and the cars were being modified to reduce fire hazards.

As part of the nhse code of conduct, engineers must give impartial, honest and equitable service to the public while also ensuring their safety.

2. When we relate Ford's action with the act of utilitarianism, then the cost benefits analysis of Ford did not take cognizance of the effects that their decisions would have. The utilitarian approach would evaluate each action differently and whatever decisions that might follow from it. Ford did not take account of many factors in their cost benefits analysis. The loss from not replacing the fuel tank was more than the benefits as lots of more would have also been spent settling people out of court.

3. Engineers should take decisions that involves the safety of the public for whom they are designing the product. They should try to correct the design defects first without considering how expensive or inexpensive it is based on ethics.