Case 2


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case 2

  1. 1. Case 2.2: The Ford Pinto <br />Bianca Guerrero <br />Kyle Hanlin<br />Ernesto Luna<br />Nathalie Morachimo<br />John St. Onge<br />Foundations of Business Ethics <br />BUS 343 <br />Prof. Frank Fabela <br />9/21/2011<br />1<br />
  2. 2. Introduction & Case Analysis<br />Kyle Hanlin<br />9/21/2011<br />2<br />
  3. 3. Introduction & Case Analysis Part 1: Introduction to the Market <br />Introduced in the early 1970s to compete with international companies such as Toyota and Volkswagen.<br />Ford compressed the Pinto’s construction timeline to only two years – instead of the traditional three-and-a-half. <br />National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard promoted car companies to check for potential fire hazards within their vehicles and internal components.<br />9/21/2011<br />3<br />
  4. 4. Introduction & Case Analysis Part 2: Problems Arise in Ford Pinto <br />Early crash tests done by Ford indicated that the Pinto design was horribly flawed; the gas tank was subject to easily rupture. <br />Only Pintos that had a “redesigned” fuel tank managed to pass the crash testing phase.<br />Ford decided that the cost of redesigning the Pinto was far too high – as the following video explains. <br />9/21/2011<br />4<br />
  5. 5. Video <br />“Runaway Cars” Segment 10 – Sudden Acceleration (Edited Running Time: 2 minutes & 15 seconds)Video provided by YouTube <br />9/21/2011<br />5<br />Click next slide to play video automatically. <br />
  6. 6. Video: “Runaway Cars” Segment 10 – Sudden Acceleration (Edited Running Time: 2 minutes & 15 seconds)<br />9/21/2011<br />6<br />
  7. 7. Discussion Questions Segment<br />Bianca GuerreroJohn St. Onge Nathalie Morachimo Ernesto Luna<br />9/21/2011<br />7<br />
  8. 8. Discussion Questions – Part One <br /> Number 3<br />Utilitarians would say that jeopardizing motorists does not by itself make Ford’s action morally objectionable. <br />The only morally relevant matter is whether Ford gave equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. <br />Do you think Ford did this? <br />9/21/2011<br />8<br />
  9. 9. Discussion Questions – Part Two <br />Number 5<br />Speculate about Kant’s response to the idea of placing a monetary value on a human life. <br />Is doing so ever morally legitimate? <br />9/21/2011<br />9<br />
  10. 10. The Definition of Kantianism <br />The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:<br />Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.<br />Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end only.<br />9/21/2011<br />10<br />
  11. 11. Discussion Questions – Part Three <br />Number 7<br />Would it have made a moral difference if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to Ford’s customers? <br />Could a rational customer have chosen to save a few dollars and risk having the more dangerous gas tank? <br />What if Ford had told potential customers about its decision? <br />9/21/2011<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Discussion Questions – Part Four <br />Number 11 <br />Assess Ford’s and GM’s actions with respect to SUV rollovers. <br /> Have the automakers met their moral obligation to consumers, or have they acted wrongly by not doing more to increase SUV safety? <br />Should they be held either morally or legally responsible for deaths from rollovers that would not have occurred in other vehicles? <br />What should automakers do to increase SUV safety? <br />9/21/2011<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Concluding Comments & Questions Segment<br />9/21/2011<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Thank You! <br />We hope that you enjoyed our presentation! <br />9/21/2011<br />14<br />