The Ethical Dilemma in the Ford Pinto Case
On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the
rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the
accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Today, the debate continues
regarding whether or not The Ford Motor Company was responsible for this case and
many other cases involving the Pinto bursting into flames resulting in disfigurement or
death.
Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but
rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of
rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty fuel system in the
car that would rupture with any rear end collision or rollover accident; this resulted in the
deaths of over 500 people. Many also accuse Ford of being fully aware of the faults with
the Pinto and selling it to the public anyway. Letting the people die because of the Pinto
and settling with their families was more economical than recalling the vehicle and fixing
the shortcomings of the Pinto.
The question remains regarding whether or not Ford put a price on human lives, or if the
company was not at fault for simply trying to compete with foreign car companies to put
an American made fuel efficient vehicle on the road. Ford was accused of not accounting
for benefit and harm in an ethical business decision, zero personal evaluation, and a very
high influence of outside factors.
Ethical business decisions require consideration of two important factors, benefit and
harm. Did the attorney for Ford Motor, James Neal act with ethical behavior while
defending the automobile giant in 1978? Did Ford Motors and James Neal consider benefit
and harm?
With respect to advising the appropriate entities of the Ford Pinto defect, many
opportunities existed for a number of employees to come forth with the truth. Instead,
eight years of continued production went by, and countless lives were lost due to the
unethical and reckless behavior of Ford Motors.
If placed in the position of jurors who heard the arguments of 1978, personal consideration
would have included benefit and harm, instead of relying on the cost/benefit analysis.
Investigation conducted by the prosecution discovered that the engineers for Ford had
knowledge of the defect during pre-production crash testing. Contrary to practicing
