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-benetanalysis weighing the cost of xing the defects ($11 per vehicle) versus the rm's potential liability for lawsuits on behalfof accidentvictims, Ford hadplacedthevalue ofahumanlife at$200,000.Fordeventuallyrecalled 1.4 million Pintos to x 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 andincurred substantialdamage to its reputation.

(a) Critique Ford's actions from the perspective of the NSPE Codeof Ethics.

Problems 29

(b) One well-known ethical theory, utilitarianism, suggests that an act is ethically justied if it results in the "greatest good for the greatest number" whenall relevant stakeholdersare considered. Did Ford's cost-benetanalysis validly applythis theory? (c) Whatshouldengineersdowhentheproductthey are designing has a known safety defect with an inexpensiveremedy? Contributed by Joseph R. Herkert, Arizona State University