the effect of the verdict from the proprietors of the company down to the consumers of the product
The who-how framework of business ethics considers the effect of the verdict from the proprietors of the company down to the consumers of the product. By examining the Pinto case, Ford Company wanted to viably compete with international automotive companies in the production of a lightweight and small vehicle. Ford came up with “pinto” in haste without thoughtful considerations. Pinto was poorly designed and therefore had flaws in the fuel system that made the car catch fire even when involved in a minor accident. Ford had two options to fix the issue. It was either supposed to spend money on correcting the defects. This choice had ramifications since it could have delayed the deadline set for manufacturing the car. The second approach was to continue producing the defective cars and then pay the owners of the vehicles if any accident resulted. Ford went for the second option since it considered it cost-effective.
Ford’s Company decision to fail to repair the defective parts of the vehicles it manufactured does not at all comply with the who-how framework for business ethics. By considering the business framework, ford was supposed to be liable and hence should have taken responsibility. It was not a wise decision for them to continue with production since ignorance is not a viable excuse. Ford Motor Company knew all the defects the car had, and therefore, they had the power to save the lives of people. They had the authority since they had enough capital to do the repairs. The lives of people are more important than making losses if the who-how framework is to be honored. Ford Company went with the fact that they were legally in compliance with the safety regulations set by the government and thus continued with mass production of the defective cars.
The who-how framework for business ethics supports the use of specific, explicit tools in the quest of finding the right solutions to problems and making amicable decisions. Some of the tools that help with finding solutions which are rational include universalization test and public disclosure test. I am in strong support that if Ford Company had utilized these essential tools, it could have analyzed and found ways of correcting the defects and mitigating the high costs. The company would have also used the tools to help it gauge if it had made a poor decision. By doing this, the company would have avoided several parties, including National Highway safety administration from getting involved in the cases involving accidents. The parties that joined the incident served to bring more trouble to the company but at least get hope to the victims of the accidents.
By deciding not to apply the business ethics as stipulated by the who-how framework, Ford Company depicted what they were capable of doing. Ford Motors by choosing to go with an option that was favorable for it stipulated that it was unable to making sound decisions when the company had financial distress. The leaders of the company made a mistake by allowing the company to neglect the defects of the car. In my perspective, the company, together with many more use the unethical methods majorly because most of the organizations have goal-setting practices. I believe that rational decisions favor all the parties, and therefore, every group must be given a priority.
References
Hester, P. T., & Adams, K. M. (2017). Ford Pinto Case Study. Systemic Decision Making Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability, and Quality, 351–384. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-54672-8_17
Lütge, C. (2018). Ford Pinto: Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Allowed in Ethical Decision Making? doi: 10.4135/9781526442093
Strother, S. C. (2018). When Making Money Is More Important Than Saving Lives: Revisiting The Ford Pinto Case. Vehicle Dynamics. doi: 10.18063/vd.v0i0.352