What My '74 Pinto Teaches Us About Ethical Decision Making

Since my first car was a Ford Pinto, I have always been interested in the case study of the Ford Pinto. For those of you not old enough to remember, the Pinto had a slight defect in the design of the gas tank, causing it to explode when the car was involved in even small rear end collisions! The case provides an interesting study into approaches to ethical decision making.

There are three possible approaches to make when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, a deontological approach and a psychological approach. In a consequentialist approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing attention on the consequences of their action (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 89). In the deontological approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing on what is right or wrong based on common values and rights of individuals and/or groups (p. 91). A decision maker basing their action on a psychological approach may vary their actions based on the level of their of cognitive moral development (p. 115).
In the Ford Pinto case, an individual who took a consequentialist approach could easily make the decision which Ford did and produce the car despite the possibility of having the gas tank explode on low speed rear-end collisions. Furthermore, they would likely agree with Ford that the car did not need to be recalled once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would look at the consequences for the broadest number of individual and groups as possible and make their decision based on doing the least harm and the most amount of good to all. Since the data showed that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles and the company's stakeholders would greatly benefit from keeping the costs low and bringing the car to market as fast as possible; they easily could have decided that the most benefit would come from going ahead with the design since there would be many who would benefit and likely no more than what existing standards permitted would be harmed. This is what Ford did despite numerous explosions and deaths.
On the other hand, a decision maker using the deontological approach would easily have decided not to move ahead with production and/or to recall the car once it was on the market since this individual would base their decision on a set of moral values and/or the a code of individual rights. They would likely argue that the car should not be produced because it would be ethical wrong to knowingly hurt defenceless individuals or because a small group of people harmed or killed. Unless the rights of these individuals could be protected, the decision would be not to produce the car, or if it was already on the market, the decision would be to recall the car and make the necessary repairs.

The results of a decision of an individual following a psychological approach could vary depending on several influencers. An individual, for example, may have agreed to move forward with the sale of the Pinto and/or not to recall it from the market because they may have been highly influenced by others in the company. Because of this influence they may have feared punishment from management or they may have hoped that by supporting the majority opinion that they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual wanted to strive for the best possible behavior for themselves and the company, they might still not have decided to redesign the Pinto's tank because they could have been highly influenced by the majority of decision makers in the company and not felt strong enough to go against their will. There are others who may have felt strong pressure to follow the "letter of the law," which Ford was complying with. Therefore, they would have felt no legal reason for making the design change. Only if they had a highly developed feeling of moral obligation might they have felt the need to go against the trend within the company in order to uphold the rights of the minority "regardless of the majority opinion (p. 115).

A closer review of our own approach to ethical decisions is important for individuals and for companies in order to avoid other similar personal and organizational disasters.


By the way, I survived my 1974 Ford Pinto! I was never rear-ended!