The design flaw of the famous Ford Pinto compact – even a slight blow to the rear of the body, could displace the filler neck of the gas tank-caused several tragic accidents at once. The problem was compounded by the fact that Ford knew about the potential issue even before the start of mass production of the model (up to the top management) but decided to leave everything as it is. It was this fact that had the most significant impact on the scandal that broke out.
Pinto was no more dangerous than its contemporaries, but the cynicism of the management, who believed that compensation payments to the victims would still be cheaper than a technical solution to the problem before the start of the conveyor, forever blackened the name of the machine. As a result, Ford lost hundreds of millions in fines, lawsuits, and compensation, and the company’s president, Lee Yakkoka, was fired.
The Ford Pinto case highlights ethical concerns about concealing information and disregarding human rights in the business’s name. Pinto analyzed the cost-benefit analysis using NHSTA data, ignoring the safety of their consumers. They prioritized financial value over human lives, which is the most severe moral issue posed by this case. In this situation, people may say that Ford is disregarding human rights because their publications only listed 15 deaths while the actual number was over 100.
The moral grounds that Ford officials use to support their choice are low-cost (cost-benefit analysis) and inexpensive cars for customers. They were primarily concerned with their bottom line (profit). Thus, I would categorize their decision as egoistic, based on the moral theories covered in this chapter. Given that they were just concerned with Ford’s self-interest and not with what makes people satisfied in general.