Reference no: EM133380110

The Ford Pinto was first introduced in 1971 and became the focus of a major scandal when it was discovered that its design allowed its fuel tank to be ruptured in the event of a rear end collision. Ford was aware of this design flaw and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths than to redesign the car. A cost-benefit analysis prepared by Ford concluded that it would cost $11 per car to correct the flaws. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This assumed that each death which could be avoided would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury which could have been avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car would also be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries and 180 burn deaths during the lifetime of the car.

When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater than the $49.5 million benefit.

Given this case, do an essay in which you address following:

First, from a utilitarian perspective, what should Ford have done when they learned of this design flaw? In your answer, provide an outline of what utilitarian theory is.

Second, from a Kantian perspective, what should Ford have done when they learned of this design flaw? In your answer, provide an outline of what Kantian theory is.

Finally, which moral theory (utilitarianism or Kantianism) provides the better account of Ford's moral obligation, and why?