Is cost benefit analysis a legitimate tool in the ford pinto case

Ethics Therefore, totell someone that there is a certain price for their life is a preposterous notion. There are numerous things which individuals consider priceless.

Is cost benefit analysis a legitimate tool in the ford pinto case

The Ford Motor Company used this data along with other statistical studies to determine the cost benefit of improving the safety of the Ford Pinto compared to the cost of loss of life. It was determined that the cost of the suggested improvements outweighed their benefits.

Buy custom Pinto Case essay

This essay aims to address whether cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool and what role, if any, it should play in moral deliberation, especially when placing a monetary value on a human life.

It also questions what responsibilities Ford had to its customers and what moral rights were in operation, as well as whether it would have made a difference if Ford customers knew about the decision.

It works by first defining the project and any alternatives; then identifying, measuring, and valuing the benefits and costs of each. The latter value is what is being questioned.

Ethical Decisions in the Ford Pinto Case

What is the cost of a life? Can one even put a cost on a life? The Ford motor company factored the cost of life into the decision that safety improvements outweighed their benefits.

Based on the above definition, however, cost benefit analysis was a legitimate tool, but for financial decisions only. If Ford had taken a utilitarian approach to the cost benefit analysis a better moral decision might have been made.

Is cost benefit analysis a legitimate tool in the ford pinto case

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions Shaw, But arguing that producing the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions Shaw, Fords decision was morally wrong because the benefits and resulting happiness of people benefitting by their decision to sell precariously unsafe vehicles would pale in comparison to the unhappiness caused by a death.

As was the case, many shareholders benefitted to the detriment of a few people. So the central question is; what is the value of a human life and can it be measured extrinsically as used in the analysis. Ford met their obligation to shareholders by focussing only on financial variables, but failed in its responsibility to customers in two ways; they neglected to factor in to their analysis the intrinsic value of human life and the impact to the many of their decisions, they also failed to inform customers of the nature of the defect which would most certainly have impacted consumer behaviour.

The consumer's right to life as well as their right to making informed decisions were undermined. If Ford had not neglected to inform their customers of the defect and thus allowed the customers to make informed decisions with regards to their products, the risk associated with the defect would have passed from Ford to the customer.

Had the consumer been correctly informed, they would become responsible for any results stemming from the decision to purchase the vehicle, regardless of whether the cost savings had been passed on to them or not. Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool.

As a tool for morality it is useful but flawed as a measure of assigning a value to human life and suffering. Ford had a responsibility to it customers to protect their interests or share information with them to protect their own the consumers interests, particularly the most important interest; their right to life.

Cost-benefit analysis is clearly a legitimate tool for businesses to use in deciding what actions to take. As Friedman has argued, the role of business is to make money and a cost benefit analysis is a very useful tool in figuring out how to do so. Pinto Case Study Solution Identify the relevant facts. Ford convinced NHTSA that cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate for determining not to change the fuel tank/5(3). Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What a role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study.  Ford Pinto Ethics Case Analysis Dickey L. Sours Jr. Business Ethics Course The Ford Pinto designs had the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle.

It would not have made a moral difference if Ford had passed the savings onto their consumers, as they would have encroached on their customer right to life and their right to make an informed decision.

Is business bluffing ethical? Harvard Business Review, 46 1 Retrieved,from http:Q4. Is cost-benefit analysis a legitimate tool? What role, if any, should it play in moral deliberation? Critically assess the example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study.

Is there anything unsatisfactory about it?

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

Pinto Case Study Solution Identify the relevant facts. Ford convinced NHTSA that cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate for determining not to change the fuel tank/5(3).

Popular Topics

Conclusion Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate financial tool. As a tool for morality it is useful but flawed as a measure of assigning a value to human life and suffering. Ford had a responsibility to it customers to protect their interests or share information with them to protect their own (the consumers) interests, particularly the most.

ANS: Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool for businesses to use in deciding what actions to take. As Friedman has argued, the role of business is to make money and a cost benefit analysis is a very useful tool in figuring out how to do so.

An examination of the Ford Pinto Case, the cost-benefit analysis, will help raise the awareness. Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, which determines the best course of action by comparing the costs and benefits generated through a particular situation.

The example of cost-benefit analysis given in the case study doesn’t provide a comprehensive approach that leads to a morally right action/5(2). The cost benefit analysis is considered as a legitimate tool because; it is a method to compute the costs and the benefits of a project and also to decide which action to be performed.

The major purpose of the business is to maximize the profits.

Ethical Decisions in the Ford Pinto Case