Ford pinto case reading response PDF

Preview

Summary

reading response ...

Description

Prof. Edel spr 2020 Reading response Ford’s Pinto case pt 1 and 2 PHIL 334 My comments Pinto was part of the ford manufacture new development engine that created a lot of controversy in the period between 1971-1980. The fuel system had a issue and they didn’t expose or revisit its case or imply to the particular consumers about how the issue falls on the consumers and impedes them this was a major ethics violation from Ford at that particular time. Ethical relevance’s get exposed from the top manufacturers of the initial to the government agencies; the follow up goes through with a tragedy that happened that killed 3 women. Most of these agencies didn’t comply or notify shortcomings to the regulatory board or people buying their systematic designed products. Ethical variations and subjects propped up due to much avoidance from design, engineers and manufacturing and finally regulatory where they didn’t even consider any flaws involved. Most critical part was getting the human welfare right in order to prevent such measures from happening, which is considered as a failed ethical evaluation. The concepts we get from this case shows how commercial police without proper regulatory procedures destroy ethical reasoning as well as many ethical components. Various occurrences from the mechanical stand point lead to creating a spark by metals rubbing that lead to explosion this design flaw from part two of the pinto case explains how it all happened. The company also had undesirable court trials from settlement cases that went sour and brought undesired attention this was the pinnacle for cases. Topping all of the flaws and government agencies regulatory commissions failing to flow code with various controversies.

Ideal response Marlon Otieno 03/4/2020 PHIL 334

The flow of the case from part one to part two brings a technical part of understanding the whole underlying of the case and what probable causes that led to this fatality as well as the cooperation’s scandal on how it masked flaws within its design, More of this was brought up including fords initial settlement which included a 137 million dollar payout as they calculated that with insurance aquarists in order to find a balance to pay the people affected by this causality. Due to justifying and underlining decisions ford was able to save money as well as also keep the model and production of the vehicle on road something that shouldn’t happen in the initial first place the continued efforts. The payouts continued to balloon than initially because of underestimates from the aquarists. This meant more payments and more court trials this make it be based on a utilitarian ethical analysis also suggesting how more compressive the issue panned out. The slow steps taken the way they based integrity of their flaw to objectify most casualties by paying for them be seen as an ethical instead of preventing life threatening accidents. The use of using cost benefit analysis that placed monetary value on human life is also unethical to also the managers/engineers confirming the design as well as various passed objectives that were supposed to be regulated or opposed but were allowed to happen showed undying unethical motives from ford’s cooperation. Rational decisions should have been taken to have life over certain design flaws as long as its safe it would have

been ethical, the good thing to come out of this was safe ethical designs that should followed at all costs in designs as well as development...