Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applying Utilitarianism To Business Ethics: The Ford Pinto Case
Applying Utilitarianism To Business Ethics: The Ford Pinto Case
Applying Utilitarianism To Business Ethics: The Ford Pinto Case
Case
Published on February 6, 2009 by annielundy in Major Companies
Comments (2)|0 Liked It
An attempt to unravel the uses and abuses of the theory of utilitarianism. It is interesting to
see how the Ford Motor company fared with this case.
Utilitarianism, in a simple definition, can be described as a consequentialist, normative theory and, according to
Fieser, means that “correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s
consequences” (Ethics, 7). To examine the definitions and concepts of the theory, in relation to business
ethics, c reference to the Ford Pinto Case will be used. It should then illustrate how utilitarian methods and
cost-benefit analysis impacted on the whole events.
Utilitarianism: The basic ethical principle of this theory is of consequences, weighing them up to determine
how every person involved in any event, issue, proposal, project and so forth, would be affected. The aim in
doing so would be to decide on a morally right action, one that would result in “the greatest overall positive
consequences for everyone” (Hinman, 136). So every aspect must be examined to evaluate potential good
and bad outcomes; if the goods outweigh the bads, then morally, the action can be deemed right. If there are
more bad consequences predicted, then the opposite applies. As with all ethical and philosophical theories,
there are more issues to be considered, nothing is quite so simple. Different forms of utilitarianism have been
described over the centuries, like Bentham’s pain – pleasure as bad and good consequences. (Ethics, 8), but
all seemed to attempt to measure and define what ‘utility’ actually means.
Read more in Major Companies
« McDonald’s or Starbucks?
Las Vegas Trip on Bailout Package Canceled by Wells Fargo »
If utilitarians consider morality to be all about consequences, then how are consequences measured, which
calls into question how utility can be measured and how much of it is the ideal level to aim for? Hinman
states: “utilitarians must answer the question of whom these are consequences for?” (137). This question is
highly relevant when applied to using utilitarian ethics in business, and in particular, within the context of the
Ford Pinto case, to be discussed later. There are many different versions of the theory, all trying to define what
consequences are applied to and how they may be applied. One version, rule-utilitarianism, considers that a
rule or code of behaviour is morally right if, by its application, the consequences are more favourable that
unfavourable to everyone. The actions driven by the rule would result in benefits, or goods for all of society.
One example might be a Council’s Urban Regeneration Programme, funded by Council Tax. The rule is that
everyone must pay, and in doing so, produce an outcome that creates a better environment for the majority
living in the urban area. The flaw is that those in the suburbs, who contribute the greatest amount, will not
receive as much favourable consequences, on the premise that they already have plenty of utilities. So simply
following a rule would not always be equally favourable.
On the other hand, act-utilitarianism, the most common form used in many circumstances, looks at the
consequences of every case individually and works out the benefits before taking a morally right action.
Leggett (13) in commenting on Ford’s use of utilitarian ethics, says:
“The utilitarian approach evaluates each action separately and the consequences that arise from it. This
analysis would include any ‘harms’ or ‘benefits’ incurred by any people involved in the case.”
Business Ethics: In applying utilitarian principles to business ethics, the cost-benefit analysis is most often
used – it is a good decision making tool. Companies will attempt to work out how much something is going to
cost them before taking action that should, ideally, result in consequences favourable to everyone. That would
mean the company could make a profit, while the consumer benefited from their product. Hopefully, products
are fit for purpose, safe, and give value for money. No business would attempt a project without evaluation of
all relevant factors first, as well as taking other issues or risks into account that might jeopardise success.
Ethical business practice, using utilitarianism, would thus consider the good and bad consequence for
everyone the action would affect, treat everybody as having equal rights, with no bias towards self, and would
use it as an objective, quantitative way to make a moral decision.
In applied business ethics, within the utilitarian theory, many principles exist which may be used to inform the
morality of actions when analysing costs-benefits, or should be, if consequences are to favour more people
overall. These include harm, honesty, justice and rights. So no harm should be done to others, people should
not be deceived and their rights to life, free expression, and safety should be acknowledged. The contention
here is that Ford abandoned these principles, abused the utilitarian theory to suit their needs, stayed within the
laws of the time, but behaved unethically. The ‘utilities’ as a consequence, appeared to be money, and they
used that to define the value of their needs against the value of human life.
Ford Pinto Case and Cost Benefit Analysis: Lacey (580-581) stated that:
“Ford pushed the federal regulators to put some price on auto safety…It was
tration (NHTSA)] which arrived at this blood-chilling calculation, not the Ford
Motor Company. But the way in which Ford took this government figure
So the Ford Pinto went on sale with dangerous design faults in the position of the fuel tank and nearby bolts,
and the tendency for the fuel valve to leak in rollover accidents. Design and production was rushed and cost of
the vehicle kept down to sell it at $2000. It sold well, until 1972 when four people died and one young boy was
horrendously burned and disfigured; these are only a few of the incidents that resulted from the Pinto’s flaws,
many more followed, costing Ford millions in compensation. The cost-benefit analysis demonstrated an abuse
of utilitarian principles, and the engineers were fully aware of the flaws, yet the company continued to sell the
car as it was, without safety modifications. They “weighed the risk of harm and the overall cost of avoiding it.”
Leggett, (1999).
The government figure, mentioned earlier, was made up of 12 ‘societal components’ that included $10,000 for
‘victim’s pain and suffering’ and was meant to determine the cost to society for each estimated death. Ford
decided to predict or estimate 180 deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 vehicles lost, and calculated $49.5
million overall, a figure that would be a benefit to the company, if they put things right with the car. The
estimated cost of doing so came to $137 million, for 11 million vehicles at $11 dollars per tank and $11 per unit
for other modifications. So costs outweighed benefits and the value of human life was quantified as an
economic commodity.
It also emerged that some evidence suggested the actual costs to correct matters were over-estimated and
would have been nearer to $63.5 million. Though these did not equate to the benefits, there would seem to be
a moral duty somewhere for a huge corporation like Ford, to bear the cost of $15 million. That way, utilitarian
ethics, normative principles and the most good and positive consequences for most people overall would have
resulted. There seems to be some form of justice or divine retribution in the way the benefits dwindled and the
costs grew over the years, as lawsuits and penalties took millions of dollars from Ford. The company did
noting illegal in terms of design at that time; they took advantage of the cost-benefit analysis, ignored ethical
principles and abused the moral aspects in utilitarianism. As Lacey (577) put it:
“The question is whether Ford and Iacocca [Executive vice president] exhibited all due care for their customers’
safety when balanced in the complex car making equation that involves cost, time, marketability and profit.”
Conclusion: Utilitarianism, business ethics and the Ford Pinto case present a dilemma, as the theory appears
to be one of moral strength and a good guideline for ethical practice. In relating its consequential content to the
Ford Pinto case, it would seem that the application of ethics had been dismissed in favour of profits, reputation
and unethical practices. The theory cannot possibly be used to put a value on human life, as Ford attempted
to do. The dangers in utilitarianism lie with the potential for abuse, and in abandoning the inherent principles,
Ford demonstrated those dangers in action.
The decision not to rectify faults represented a denial of doing no harm, not deceiving others, justice and the
rights to life and safety. Nor can the theory measure human suffering or loss, as Ford found, to its cost; it
cannot predict consequences accurately or quantify benefits and harms, simply by applying a cost-benefit
analytical tool. In considering that the ends justify the means, another aspect of utilitarianism, and determining
the pain of actions, volume and not ‘who’ suffers, has significance. In principle, evaluating of good and bad
consequences provides one way of ensuring that companies consider the morality of their actions, which may
suggest that utilitarianism can be a positive influence for ethical business practice.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm
Hinman, L. M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory: Chapter 5:
Wadsworth: 2003
Leggett, C. The Ford Pinto Case: The Valuation of Life as it Applies to the
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html
Home | Jeremy Bentham: His Life and Impact--jk | UTILITARIAN ETHICS: an introductory
explanation | JAMES MILL ON RELIGION | BENTHAM ON BUGGERY, and other crimes
against oneself | The Bentham Brothers, their adventure in Russia | Panopticon, Bentham's
design of prisons | Bentham's final resting place | Bentham's Utilitarianism in Victorian
England | Bentham, Life and Involvement with University College London | JOHN STUART
MILL ON JEREMY BENTHAM |Bentham, a Deeper Look | John Stuart Mill: a brief
account | Jeremy Bentham's Will | The Rationale of Reward--Bentham| BENTHAM: THE
RATIONAL OF PUNISHMENT IMMORAL | BENTHAM: ON THE RATIONAL OF
REWARD | JEREMY BENTHAM: Shorter Britannica Article | UTILITARIANISM - - John Stuart
Mill | Taylor Harriet Mill | John Stuart Mill: a fuller account | Betham and His Works | Betham:
A Short Accounting | Utilitarianism as adopted by theologians: a review |Utilitarianism, an
historical survey | James Mill | Samuel Bentham | THE SPRINGS OF ACTION--Jeremy
Bentham |JEREMY BENTHAM ON PLEASURE | Prof. Singer, the utilitarian, 2
articles | UTILITARIAN LINKS
Successful 6,688,901
6.
server requests Requests
Successful
7. requests in last 69,386 Requests
7 days
Successful 3,971,643
8. requests for Requests for
pages pages
Successful
requests for 69,386 Requests
9.
pages in last 7 for pages
days
Your site had 11,006 page views yesterday and
311,2768 page views so far this month
T h is s it e i s o n e of 3 sit es ma in ta in e d b y Ca lif or ni a S k ep ti cs
A ll wi th c oo l ar t and in f or mat i v e ar t i cl es
A = sites where the articles have with them art. All home pages have art.
#7 TABLE OF CONTENTS skeptically, a dozen major topic, over 1,000 articles, averages
over 5,500 pages downloaded per weekday.
#201 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR CURRENT NEWS ISSUES, 400 current political news,
international news, corporate news & archives—over 600 pages downloaded per day A
#31 TABLE OF CONTENTS healthfully, 600 health & medical articles, many topics,
averages over 1,000 pages downloaded per day. A
# 220 POD CASTS & U-TUBE, for those who like the visuals A
Skeptical sites:
#1 Enlightenment, collection of the best A
#4 Logical threads
#6 Thinkers on Religion
#9 Spiritualism
#17 Quackery
#19 Skepticism
#37 Biographical
Religious sites:
#1 Enlightenment A
#9 Spiritualism
#22 Christianity
Political-economic sites:
#111 World Trade Organization A
#106 Economics A
#116 OIL A
#14 Labor A
#3 Utilitarianism
#33 Satire
HELP!!!
We think that deceptions need to be debunked. Help publicize this site. We appreciate
feedback. Contact US
at thinker@skeptically.org.
Moreover, JK has something to say, and he likes saying it. He has written several works of fiction
in need of a publisher. Can you help?
California Skeptics has an excellent collection of political cartoons and huge collection of links to
sites with political cartoons and animation
OUTSTANDING SITES
QuackWatch, guide to health fraud by Dr. Stephen Barrett
The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell, MD. Absolutely the best book on profits and
drugs for it reveals—without being technical and tedious--more about the workings of the profit
system and its relationship to government than all others—and it’s available on audio CD. (1-20)