What Is Ford's Pinto An Example Of Utilitarianism

For centuries, philosophers debated about the definition of morality and its impact on society. Although philosophers agree that morality is the distinction between right and wrong, they do not all agree on the causes of correct or incorrect actions. When examining Ford’s Pinto cars, the concept of utilitarianism as a moral theory, constructed by Jeremy Bentham, is significantly utilized to justify the actions of Ford. Ultimately, analyzing the Pinto case’s details and assessing the circumstances through the lens of utilitarianism, the conclusion is drawn that utilitarianism overlooks elements of morality.

Before considering the specifics of the Ford Pinto case, it is first necessary to define utilitarianism. Michael Sandel summarizes the

fundamental understanding of the concept of utilitarianism by explaining, “Its main idea is simply stated and intuitively appealing: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure of pain.” (Sandel, p. 34). According to Bentham, maximizing happiness is the standard for weighing morality.
However, Sandel blatantly opposes this argument through his second objection. In this protestation, Sandel contends,
“Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality, based on measuring, aggregating,
and calculating happiness. It weighs preferences without judging them. Everyone’s
preferences count equally.

This nonjudgmental spirit is the source of much of its appeal.

And its promise to make moral choice a science informs much contemporary economic

reasoning. But in order to aggregate preference, it is necessary to measure them on a

single scale. Bentham’s idea of utility offers one such common currency. (Sandel, p. 41).

If utilitarianism is used to weigh morality, an isolated common currency must exist in order to collectively account for the people’s varying preferences and definitions of happiness. Ford’s Pinto case is the perfect example of exercising utilitarianism through a common currency.

In the 1960s, foreign goods posed a momentous threat to the American businesses. Imported goods were sold at a substantially inexpensive price. Ford Motor Company made the decision to combat this threating presence by introducing the Ford Pinto. According the Shaw, “Eager to have its subcompact ready for the 1971 model year, Ford decided to compress the normal drafting-board-to-showroom time of about three-and-a-half years to two. The compressed schedule meant that any designed changes typically made before production-line tooling would have to be made during it.” (Shaw, p.

82).
After undergoing required crash testing and 20-mph, it was revealed that the Ford Pinto held a weak gas tank.

Being struck in the rear of the car, the gas tank would rupture. Ford, presented with a choice to adjust the gas tank for a cost of $5 to $8, made the decision to continue in a “business as usual” manner. Using utilitarianism and a common currency, Ford’s reasoning for this came down to cost-benefit reasoning. If Ford fixed the issue with the rupturing gas tank, the cost would outweigh the cost of deaths caused, injuries, and the vehicle itself. The total amounted to $49.5 million dollars. Some studies were done to conclude that human life was worth $200,000. It is for this reason that life is integrated into Ford’s cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, the cost to replace or fix the gas tanks would be near $137 million dollars. Using a common currency to weigh a moral decision, it is morally ethical of Ford to not fix the rupturing gas tank because the cost of solving the issue outweighs the cost of future problems with

customers.
As a result of Ford’s moral calculations, over five hundred people died as a result of the exploding gas tank. Because Ford was using utilitarian reasoning when making their decisions, factors pertaining to happiness is left out. Sandel argues, “To measure the full effect on utility of traffic fatality, one would have to include the victim’s loss of future happiness, not only lost earnings and funeral cost.” (Sandel, p. 44). Sandel applies this example to prove that the use of utilitarianism as a moral theory is flawed. When using the common currency of money, Ford was unable to incorporate all aspects of morality. In the process of using cost-benefit analysis, Ford excluded the future happiness of the victims and their families.
In summary, Sandel is correct in objecting to the use of utilitarianism as a moral theory, because a common currency rejects other important factors. In the case of Ford’s Pinto, Ford’s cost-benefit analysis failed to include the future happiness of the victims. Putting a price on human life, utilitarianism and its common currency effectively ignore important aspects of morality. When using a common currency, it is impossible to weigh everyone’s personal preferences equally. In Sandel’s first objection, he says, “By caring only about the sum of satisfaction, it can run roughshod over individual people.” (Sandel, p. 37). By generating a common currency, utilitarianism damages rights of the individuals.