The Ford Pinto Case

Write a 4-5 page paper arguing that, on both the Utilitarian and the

Deontological conceptions of morality, those, within the company,

that knew about the decision to release the Pintos for sale, had a

moral obligation to blow the whistle on the company and warn the

general public that it was putting their safety at risk.

This paper regards, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Whistleblowing and the Ford Pinto Case. (See Chapter 3(DeGeorge) to read about Utilitarianism, Chapter 4 (DeGeorge) to read about Deontology and

see chapter 14 (DeGeorge) to read about the Ford Pinto Case and about Whistleblowing).

The Ford Pinto Case:

In 1968, the Ford Motor Company, in order to increase its market

share, decided to develop a subcompact car—the Ford Pinto. Due to

market pressures, the Pinto was designed and developed on an

accelerated schedule. In its haste, the designers overlooked some

serious defects in the design of the car’s fuel system. One of the main

defects was that the fuel tank was located nine inches behind the rear

axle and there was nothing protecting it from the impact of potential

rear end collusions. This meant, inter alia, that, in the event of a rear

end collision, the fuel tank could explode and the car could burst into

flames. The consequences of the design defect could thus prove to be

deadly.

The heads of the company were informed of the defect after the cars

had gone into production and were ready to be released. They were

also informed that there was a pretty easy fix—place a $11 plate baffle

inside each fuel tank. The baffle plates would prevent the fuel tanks

from exploding.

The heads of the company decided, after careful consideration, it

would go ahead and release the cars for sale without the baffle

modification. Their reasoning, after having done a risk benefit

analysis, was that it would cost the company more to make the baffle

modifications than it would to pay out on the potential legal suits (for

wrongful deaths and injuries). Putting baffles into every Pinto would

cost about $135 million. Paying out on the suits would cost, they

estimated, about $49 million.

There were people, within the company, “who knew” the company’s

decision to release the Pintos for sale, without the modifications, would

put the general public at serious risk.

Your Assignment:

Write a 4-5 page paper arguing that, on both the Utilitarian and the

Deontological conceptions of morality, those, within the company,

that knew about the decision to release the Pintos for sale, had a

moral obligation to blow the whistle on the company and warn the

general public that it was putting their safety at risk.

The paper should have 5 parts.

I. Introduction. Tell us what the paper is going to be about.

(It is about the Ford Pinto Case, whistleblowing, Utiliarianism

and Deontology). It is about whether people, within the

company, “in the know”, had a moral obligation to blow the

whistle on their own company.

II. Thesis: State in a single sentence which you will be arguing

for. You will argue that on the two leading conceptions of

morality (both Utilitarianism and Deontology), those “in the

know” had a moral obligation.

III. Set up the case. Tell us all the relevant facts about the

case. Tell us what whistleblowing. What is whistleblowing?

Tell us about the conditions for when one can and when we

must “blow the whistle”. Tell us about the Utilitarian

conception of morality.

What is the Utilitarian conception of

morality. Tell us about Deontology. What is the deontological

conception of morality.

IV. Present your arguments. First argue that, on the Utilitarian

conception of morality, those “in the know”, had a moral

obligation to blow the whistle. Then, argue that, on the

deontological conception of morality also, those “in the know”

had a moral obligation to blow the whistle.

V. Conclusion. What is the one thing the reader should have

learned by having read your paper. That is, tell us what the

lesson or moral of your paper is.