Ever 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 take when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, an ethical 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 her action on a psychological approach may vary her actions according to the level of her cognitive moral development (p. 115).

In the case of the Ford Pinto, a person who took a consequentialist approach could easily make the decision Ford made 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 there was no need to recall the car once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would look at the consequences for as many individuals and groups as possible and make his decision based on causing the least harm and the most good to all. Since the data should indicate that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles and business stakeholders would benefit greatly from keeping costs down and getting the car to market as quickly as possible; they could easily have decided that the greatest benefit would come from going forward with the design, since there would be many who would benefit and it would probably not be harmed more than 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 withdraw the car once it was on the market. Since this person would base his decision on a set of moral values ​​and/or the rights of people, he would probably argue that the car should not be produced unless the rights of the minority group that would be harmed can be guaranteed.

The results of an individual’s decision following a psychological approach would vary depending on their level of cognitive moral development (p. 115). If, for example, they were at a pre-conventional level, they would probably have agreed to go ahead with the sale of the Pinto and/or not withdraw it from 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 view they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual was on the conventional level, they may not have decided to redesign Pinto’s tank yet. While they were fighting for “good behavior”, most of the decision makers in the company would have influenced them a lot and they would not have gone against their will. They would also have followed the “letter of the law” that supported the case for not needing to make a design change. Only if they had a highly developed level of postconventional or principled moral development would they have felt the need to go against the grain within the company to defend minority rights “regardless of majority opinion” (p. 115).

By the way, I outlived my 1974 Ford Pinto! Thank God I didn’t get hit from behind!

References:

Treviño, L. and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and business ethics. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.