Immanuel Kant and The Ford Pinto Case

Immanuel Kants theory on morals states that nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.1 Kant points to other human qualities such as courage, intelligence, wit and others that are undoubtedly good and desirable,2 however, can become bad if the will of the person using them is not good. Kant maintains that in order for an action to be considered moral, it should first remove the what it performs or effects3 and secondly the attainment of some proposed end.4 In removing these motivation and outcomes of an action, how can an action be considered moral? Kant states that a reasonable person should never act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.5 This means in order to determine the morality of an action, the action must be made into a maxim or rule that would apply universally without contradictions. If you steal but expect other people to not steal, you contradict yourself. Your motivation lacks universal validity and is therefore immoral. In an effort to produce an affordable and stylish subcompact car, with a low operating cost: Ford rushed its production time to make the Pinto in order to be able to compete with foreign automakers, which were monopolising the American small-car market in the late 1960s. The Pinto was to weigh 2 000 pounds (about 907 kilograms) and cost no more than $2000.6 During production, however, their engineers discovered that there was a major flaw, in 20 mph crash tests, the Pinto failed with ruptured

Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) p. 1 Kant., Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) p. 1 3 Kant., Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) p. 2 4 Kant., Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) p. 2 5 Kant., Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) p. 8 6 The Ford Pinto in William H. Shaw et. al. eds. Moral Issues in Business (Nelson, 2010), p.64.

gas tanks and dangerous leaks.7 The fire and explosion risk that could occur even during low speed rearend impact was reported, however, Ford made the decision to continue with the original design. It seems Ford officials made their decision to continue with the original design of the Pinto firstly, due to the sped up production schedule and any changes would mean retooling of the production line, which would add another year to the schedule. Secondly, they conducted a cost-benefit analysis where they calculated the value of human life at $200, 000, a serious burn injury at $67, 000 and estimated deaths of 180 people and serious burns to 180 people. They determined that the reworked gas tank on the Pinto would cost $137 million while possible liability cost could work out to be $49 million. Ford decided it would be more profitable to produce the Pinto with the defect rather than correct the flaw. The results was numerous preventable deaths, serious fire related injuries or damages and approximately fifty lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with the rear-end accidents in the Pinto,8 Ford was even charged with a criminal homicide in the case of three teenagers burning to death when their Pinto was rear-ended and the gas tank burst into flames. In applying Kants ethics to the Ford Pinto case, we would begin by examining the good will in Fords decision. Ford was greatly motivated as imports were eating up more and more of the subcompact auto market,9 and they wanted to claim a share of the market as well as sell a substantial amount of cars. There was no good will in Fords decision, they were motivated by money and competition; there was no regard for their duty to ensure that their car was as safe as possible for the consumers. Kants theory of morality is based on duty and good will; the reason and consequences are irrelevant. Using Kants ethics we can further examine the morality of Ford in knowingly selling unsafe cars by applying the universal test. If there was a rule that it is acceptable for all automakers to forego safety standards in the interest of competition and profit, it could never pass the criteria provided by Kant. Reason would not support such a position, since the executives at Ford would themselves be in the same position as their consumers and would not agree to that rule.
7

The Ford Pinto in William H. Shaw et. al. eds. Moral Issues in Business (Nelson, 2010), p.64 The Ford Pinto in William H. Shaw et. al. eds. Moral Issues in Business (Nelson, 2010), p.65 9 The Ford Pinto in William H. Shaw et. al. eds. Moral Issues in Business (Nelson, 2010), p.64

Kants ethics proves that the Ford Pinto decision immoral, in that the act of releasing unsafe cars, just to get into the market and generate profits when applied universally would not make any sense: consumers would not buy any cars and automakers would not make any profit, therefore the rule would fail the universal test. The ethical issue in the Ford Pinto case was whether they had a moral responsibility to see to the welfare of their consumers, outside of the legal responsibilities of government safety guidelines and reduced profitability by their stakeholders. A decision maker using the Utilitarianism approach would look at the consequences for the largest number of individuals as possible and make their decision based on doing the least harm and the most amounts of good to all. Based on the information provided by Ford, they would have decided that the most benefit would come from going ahead with the design. On the other hand, a decision maker using the Kant s approach to ethics would have decided not to move ahead with production, they would likely argue that the car should not be produced unless it is completely safe. Their decision would be based on duty for duty sake and protecting humans, regardless of the consequences.