It's as certain as daylight that this will happen. Sooner or later we will all face death, it's just a matter of time. If you drove a subcompact car designed by Ford in the early 1970s, it might arrive sooner than you'd like. We often purchase vehicles for convenience, to help us get from one point to another, faster and hopefully more safely. Now, what if safety was a little out of reach and what if your life had a dollar amount that determined its value? Well, the car just happened to drive, setting that equation in motion. Doesn't this seem ethically or morally wrong to you? Ford Motor Company didn't think so and neglected the issue of ethics. Ultimately, Ford created just that, a predetermined equation to determine the value of human life. And the basis for establishing that shocking solution, to save some money. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay If you haven't figured it out yet, we're referring to the Ford Pinto. The infamous explosive car delivered by Ford Motor Company to compete with foreign imports and combat rising fuel costs. You might think that safety would be at the forefront of the minds of motor vehicle designers and chief executive officers (CEOs), but in this case it wasn't, just the end result was. This belief can be compared to the ever-controversial theorist Milton Friedman. He believed that “there is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Fox, 2012). Does this theory put safety and precautions second to profits? Can someone intentionally manufacture a product knowing that innocent, unknowing consumers could be at risk? One might wonder whether the president (Lee Lacocca at the time) of the Ford Motor Company believed and followed this ethical theory of Friedman's. Ever since he approved and rushed the manufacturing of the dreaded Pinto. It would appear that Lacocca had issues with the ethical dilemma surrounding the design and failure of the Pinto. In a leaked memo from Ford, the Pinto suffered from a flawed design that involved the fuel tank exploding in small rear-end collisions while possibly blocking the doors, trapping its occupants inside. Thus, creating a crematorium on wheels. The car earned a nickname after the deaths of dozens of people: "Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling." Despite this known flaw, production continued. Included in the troubleshooting memo was the cost and method to correct the problem. $11-13 one piece of plastic installed per vehicle (price varies by item). It initially seems relatively low, but when you multiply that figure by the number of cars in use and in future production, that figure has skyrocketed. Ford calculated a number that compares the cost associated with recalling and repairing the defective Pinto or paying any lawsuits filed by injured occupants or families of the deceased. Unfortunately for Ford Pinto drivers, according to “risk-benefit analysis” and Friedman's theory, the loss of profit seemed too costly for repairs. Ford estimators calculated that human life was worth about $200,000, with an estimate that 1,000 people could die in violent crashes, recalling and repairing the Pinto simply didn't make financial sense. So is life only worth $200,000? Well, that's the idea and Lacocca went ahead with it. Unfortunately, a time machineit's not an existing thing and we can't somehow manipulate Lacocca's mentality. If we could, I would have injected him with a revised ethical theory that might have altered his mindset regarding the Pintos and, more importantly, human life. Using utilitarianism, for example, this form of ethics “holds that ethical behavior consists of actions that create the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” If we could go back in time, change Lacocca's decision not to produce the Pinto without altering the defective fuel tank, and strengthen the overall structure, the build would have proven less expensive and perhaps created a positive impact on the car's history. But it's safe to say that Lacocca had a problem with ethics, his actions choosing to rush production despite the problems led to the recall of 1.5 million Pintos (Eckhold, 1978) and jeopardized the safety of its consumers. It is fair to say that his choice was not partly based on the greatest good. Obviously, given that Lacocca did not make the best decision-making choices, there may be some generalized legal arguments that could demonstrate how this matter may have been influenced. However, properly administering codes of ethics, creating positive working environments with a trustworthy workforce and supporting future whistleblowers are just a few examples worth mentioning. We hope that every company and its personnel, whether employees, supervisors, managers, etc., are above the temptation to commit unlawful acts, knowingly. But unfortunately there are none. To counter this, many companies have implemented a measurement tool, a code of ethics. This simple but effective “systematic procedure” helps protect yourself, products, companies and, hopefully, consumers. When adhering to a code of ethics, you will probably have to ask yourself some of these questions if you are faced with a dilemma: Is it the right thing to do? Am I loyal to my family, my company and myself? Have I been asked to misrepresent information or deviate from normal procedures? What would it look like if it became news or public knowledge? Will what I'm doing cause harm? These are just some of the few questions you might find regarding a code of ethics. You might ask yourself these things when evaluating problems; Too bad Lacocca didn't do it. As a business owner, the importance of a reliable and ethical workforce is paramount. Thinking back to the 1970s, some may think of the work environment of that time. The 1970s were a time when strikes occurred regularly. The desire to improve working conditions, increase job security, end gender-restrictive jobs, demand higher pay, all played an important role in creating a better workplace and generating strikes. These reasons and others may have led to the need for skilled, reliable workers. Companies like Ford may have chosen workers who are willing to do their jobs without hesitation and perhaps without being upfront about potential problems. Hiring the wrong type of employee who might overlook a potential problem versus a member who mentions problems before they arise may have played a major role for Ford. This factor may have contributed to Lacocca's and management's ethical issues. A whistleblower is an “employee who brings the wrongdoings of an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency” (Legal Definition, n.d.). The individual responsible for leaking the sentencing memo regarding Pinto to Mother Jones magazine may be.