In the 1970s the Ford Motor Company sold its subcompact Pinto model with known design defects. In particular, the gas tank's design and location led to rupture, leaks, and explosion in low-speed, rearimpact collisions. Fifty-nine people burned to death in Pinto accidents. In a cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of fixing the defects ($11 per vehicle) versus the firm's potential liability for lawsuits on behalf of accident victims, Ford had placed the value of a human life at $200,000. Ford eventually recalled 1.4 million Pintos to fix the gas tank problem for a cost of $30 million to $40 million. In addition the automaker ultimately paid out millions more in liability settlements and incurred substantial damage to its reputation.
(a) Critique Ford's actions from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
(b) One well-known ethical theory, utilitarianism, suggests that an act is ethically justified if it results in the "greatest good for the greatest number" when all relevant stakeholders are considered. Did Ford's cost-benefit analysis validly apply this theory?
(c) What should engineers do when the product they are designing has a known safety defect with an inexpensive remedy? Contributed by Joseph R. Herkert, Arizona State University.