Ford Pinto and utilitarian ethics What are the essential features of utilitarianism?

Consequentialist Maximise pleasure (Bentham) or happiness (Mill) Calculate empirically balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over misery Tends to ignore individual rights, classic criticism minority is sacrificed for majority Does Mill s rule utilitarianism get round this problem? Aims of this lesson Revise utilitarian ethics Link it to cost-benefit analysis used by businesses Consider the case of the Ford Pinto (1972) Evaluate whether utilitarian ethics is to blame does the criticism hold good? We start by viewing a Youtube clip on the Ford Pinto. What are three key facts you can find? View actively!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGbrlufryw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGbrlufryw

Style over safety? Because of styling and cost constraints, locating the gas tank over the axle, which was known to prevent fire in rear-end crashes, was undesirable. The Pinto had to sell for $2,000. The axle arrangement, in concert with styling constraints, resulted in a small luggage compartment that would be limited in carrying long objects such as golf clubs. To increase the size of the luggage compartment, the gas tank was relocated to the car s rear (Strobel, 1994) This fault meant that Ford s own test result = explosion in 8/11 tests

 Some cost /benefit facts The piece of plastic cost $11 a car to fit Estimated cost of fitting $137m Estimated cost of casualties $48m in compensation But .. a problem with utilitarian ethics is we cannot know precisely what the consequences will be . Actual compensation cost was millions, and in 1978 a recall took place anyway. Reputation and ethical outcomes 500 burn fatalities in crashes (Dowie, 1977). Two million Pintos were sold. In September 1978, Ford issued a recall for 1.5 million 1971-76, making it the largest recall in the industry up to that time. One result was the largest personal injury judgment ever ($6.6m awarded).

In the 1979 landmark case State of Indiana v. Ford Motor Co., Ford notoriously became the first American corporation ever prosecuted on criminal homicide charges. Ford was found not guilty in March 1980 (Schwartz, 1991). Evaluate Is cost/benefit analysis to blame or poor cost/benefit analysis based on Government figures ($200,000 per human life)? Is utilitarian ethics to blame? Or a failure to do a proper analysis of likely consequences based on known facts that in two-thirds of rear end crash tests the tank exploded?

Morality

Jonica Gunson is the environmental compliance manager for a small plastics manufacturing company. She is currently faced with the decision whether or not to spend money on new technology that will reduce the level of a particular toxin in the wastewater that flows out the back of the factory and into a lake. The factory's emission levels are already within legal limits. However, Jonica knows that environmental regulations for this particular toxin are lagging behind scientific evidence. In fact, a scientist from the university had been quoted in the newspaper recently, saying that if emission levels stayed at this level, the fish in the lakes and rivers in the area might soon have to be declared unsafe for human consumption. Further, if companies in the region don't engage in some self-regulation on this issue, there is reason to fear that the government backed by public opinion may force companies to begin using the new technology, and may also begin requiring monthly emission level reports (which would be both expensive and time consuming). But the company's environmental compliance budget is tight. Asking for this new technology to be installed would put Jonica's department over-budget, and could jeopardize the company's ability to show a profit this year.