Since my first car was a Ford Pinto, I have always been interested in Ford Pinto blowouts that were caused by faulty gas tank design, providing an interesting case study in approaches to ethical decision making. There are three possible approaches to follow when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, a deontological approach and a psychological approach. In a consequentialist approach, the decision maker would base his decision by focusing attention on the consequences of his action (Treviño and Nelson, 2005, p. 89). In the deontological approach, the decision maker would base his decision by focusing on what is right or wrong based on the common values and rights of individuals and / or groups (p. 91). A decision maker who bases his action on a psychological approach can vary his actions depending on the level of his cognitive moral development (p. 115).
In the case of Ford Pinto, a person who took a consequentialist approach could easily make Ford’s decision and produce the car despite the possibility of the gas tank exploding in low-speed rear-end collisions. Also, they would probably agree with Ford that the car did not need to be recalled once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would consider the consequences for as many individuals and groups as possible and would make his or her decision based on doing the least harm and the greatest amount of good for all. Since the data should indicate that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles, interested companies would greatly benefit from keeping costs low and getting the car to market as quickly as possible; they could easily have decided that the greatest benefit would come from going ahead with the design, as there would be many who would benefit and it would probably not be damaged more than what the existing standards allowed.
On the other hand, a decision maker using the ethical approach would easily have decided not to go ahead with production and / or recall the car once it was on the market. Since this person would base their decision on a set of moral values and / or the rights of the people, they would probably argue that the car should not be produced unless the rights of the minority group that would be harmed could be guaranteed.
The results of an individual’s decision following a psychological approach would vary depending on his level of cognitive moral development (p. 115). If, for example, they were at a pre-conventional level, they probably would have agreed to go ahead with the sale of the Pinto and / or not take it off the market because they would have been heavily influenced by others in the company. They would have feared punishment from management or hoped that, by supporting the majority opinion, they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual were on the conventional level, they may not have yet decided to redesign the Pinto’s tank. As long as they were striving for “good behavior”, most of the decision makers in the company would have had a great influence on them and would not have gone against their will. They would also have followed the “letter of the law” that supported the case of not needing to make a design change. Only if they had a highly developed post-conventional or principled level of moral development would they have felt the need to go against the trend within the company to defend minority rights “regardless of the opinion of the majority (p. 115) .
By the way, I survived my 1974 Ford Pinto! Thank goodness they didn’t hit me from behind!
References:
Treviño, L. and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.