The Ford Pinto met federal safety standards yet it had a design flaw that result

ed in serious injuries and deaths.

There are two general ways of thinking about the decisions made by Dennis Gioia
in handling problems. The first appeals to the utilitarian ideal of maximizing g
ood consequences and minimizing bad consequences. This includes the Cost-Benefit
Approach, the Act Utilitarian Approach, and the Rule Utilitarian Approach. The
second appeals to the ideal of respect for persons. This includes the Golden Rul
e Approach, The Self-Defeating Approach, and the Rights Approach. Both approach
have their own pros and cons, and not each approach is suitable in solving ethic
al dilemma in a case. Thus, all available approach needs to be studied to come o
ut a best route in solving this ethical problem.
From the utilitarian thinking, it is all about bringing the greatest good for th
e greatest number. From the Cost-Benefit approach, the course of action that pro
duces the greatest benefit relative to cost is the course of action that should
be chosen to be implemented. There are things to be considered, first is to know
which course of action will produce the most good in both the short and long te
rm. Second, the utilitarian aim is to make choices that promise to bring about t
he greatest amount of good. Third, the action chosen is to favour the greater ag
gregate good at the expense of a vulnerable minority. Ford Motor Company has use
d this approach to evaluate the benefit of ignoring the design flaw for the grea
ter good of profit to the company. The determination of Ford Motor Company to co
mpete with fuel-efficient Volkswagen and Japanese imports causes the company to
restrict design safety.
However, through this approach, Ford Motor Company has overlooked the consequenc
es of the design flaw which leads to injuries and deaths of drivers. There are s
everal reasons why such a strictly economic theory should not be used. First, i
t seems unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriou
sly injured because it would cost too much to prevent it. Second, the analysis
does not take into all the consequences, such as the negative publicity that For
d received and the judgments and settlements resulting from the lawsuits. Also,
some things just can't be measured in terms of dollars, and that includes human
life.
Thus, another approach has to be used. From the Act Utilitarian Approach, it foc
uses the attention on the consequences of particular actions. In this approach,
Ford Motor Company would need to identify that the available options in this sit
uation, which is taking risks with the faulty design or recall the vehicle immed
iately for modifications to the fuel tank. Then, he would determine the appropri
ate audience for the options, which were the Pinto drivers. Finally, he has to d
ecide which option bring about the greatest good for the drivers, taking into ac
count harms as well as benefits. Through the Act Utilitarian Approach, the focus
shifts to the consequences of Pinto drivers, not just focusing on profit gained
by the company. This approach is often helpful in deciding options in situation
s that call for making moral decisions, which in this case, the safety of Pinto
drivers. It is clearer that now the better alternative for Ford Motor Company is
to recall the vehicle immediately for modifications to the fuel tank after repo
rts of deaths and injuries are being made. Unfortunately, the company failed to
do so which causes the consequences of six more people died in Pinto fires after
a rear-end collision.
The Act Utilitarian Approach, the attention is on maximizing good consequences.
It is still utilitarian thinking, where there is no equal regard for moral agent
s is understood as a basic requirement of justice.
In Respect for persons, the precepts of common morality protect the moral agency
of individual human beings. Maximizing the welfare of the majority must take se
cond place to this goal. People cannot be killed, deceived, denied their freedom
, or otherwise violated simply to bring about a greater total amount of utility.

The Golden Rule Approach employs the idea of universalizability, much similar to
utilitarian approaches to moral thinking. Universalizability is an idea which i
nvolves everybody. In every decision that has been made, the decision made invol
ves everybody, not just involves a company. Generally, most people would acknowl
edge that if everybody thinks that they are acting in a morally acceptable fashi
on, then others should find it morally acceptable to do similar kinds of things
in similar circumstances. This same insight can lead us to ask questions about f
airness and equal treatment. An important aspect of universalizability is revers
ibility. This implies that a persons judgment should not change simply because the
roles are reversed. In this Pinto fire case, for Ford Motor Company, Dennis A.
Gioia, Fords field recall coordinator should reverse his role and think from the p
oint of view of the drivers as well. From that, Gioia will hope for safe vehicle
design rather than more profit. Safety is always the main priority for car driv
ers. Even though Pinto fires did not reflect any frequently repeated patterns or
identifiable causes that would necessarily justify a recall, he cannot ignore t
he serious injuries and deaths just because he is not involved in it.
Though the Rights Approach, driver rights serve as a protective barrier, shieldi
ng individuals from unjustified infringements of their moral agency by others. A
lthough the hierarchy of rights provides no absolute answer to ethical questions
, it provides a framework for addressing ethical problems. Ford Motor Company sh
ould identify the basic obligations, values, and interests at stake. Then, confl
icts between profit and safety should be noted down and analyse the action to de
termine which option are available to overcome this issue. The company should al
so determine the right audiences which are the safety of the Pinto drivers. Then
, evaluation on whether to retain or recall the faulty vehicle should be made an
d the seriousness of the rights infringements that would occur with each options
should be assessed. Finally, make a choice that produces the least serious righ
ts infringements. It is the right of the car user to have their cars checked and
flaw-free. When a problem is noticed, it is also the right of the public to kno
w the problem and get the recall of the vehicle for repair for modifications. Fu
rthermore, it is also the right of the consumer to get good quality product, not
vehicle with compromised safety.
In conclusion, it is ultimately a loss if Ford Motor Company ignore the injuries
and deaths. From a moral and consequences stand point, failing to recall vehicl
es for modification has caused much more damage. Although cost-benefit approach
says the other, morally, it is important to put priority on human life first bef
ore profit of the company. Dennis A Gioia had made fatal errors due to the corpo
rate context. He is a victim of impediments to responsible action. He falls in g
roupthinking. A noteworthy feature of the organizational settings within which e
ngineers work is that individuals tend to work and deliberate in groups. Gioia p
articipated in group decision making rather than function as an individual decis
ion maker in the company during the decision of recalling the vehicle. Although
this may contribute to better decisions, it also creates well-known but commonly
overlooked tendencies to engage in situations in which groups come to agreement
at the expense of critical thinking. Thus, it is hardly to blame only Gioia due
to the problem of many hands, which this problem occurred is not just because o
f the inability of coordinator to recall the vehicle for modification soon enoug
h, but it starts with the vision and mission of the company, management as well
as the manufacturing of the company.