Problem: The debate between Milton Friedman and the college student arose where the student asked how a situation which seemed ethically wrong, was deemed right accordingFriedman's Shareholder Theory. The dilemma surrounded the situation of GM's car, produced under Ford, which lacked a key ignition- switch component, a plastic block surrounding the gas tank, wher if a rear end collision occurred, would cause the car to blow up and cost the driver and passengers' lives. Ford knew the plastic block would cost 13 dollars per and estimated roughly 200 people would die as a result of the explosion to which their lives would cost around 200 000 dollars. They found it was more expensive to install the part than save the lives, therefore they did not install the part. Friedman initially responded that the student was arguing about the figure Ford used to value one's life, that cost is not a factor in the principle and th the principle remains regardless of the cost to take the more ethical approach. I understand and in some ways agree with Friedman that the logic in this principle, that a principle remains regardless of the cost involved, is correct in that each case should not be approached differently under the same principle due to the costs involved. I think unfortunately under this theory, this means in the GM case it results in the ethically unjust action.