My first reaction when reading this story was a desire for what I'd (generously) call "justice" for the Ford staff that made that choice.
But on further reflection, I'm wondering what is an acceptable way to navigate those decisions?
If viewed entirely as a tradeoff between safety of that car's passengers vs. the total corporate profits, then the "right" answer is they should operate as a nonprofit that barely makes ends meet.
poulpy123 · 4h ago
You cannot have a car that is perfectly safe, but what is described here is not a reasonable compromise between safety and producing a car, but a deliberate choice by executives to sell cars with a known dangerous design to spare the company 60 millions dollars.
CoastalCoder · 3h ago
> but what is described here is not a reasonable compromise between safety and producing a car
That's my intuition as well. But the questions (for me) remain:
What are the acceptable tradeoffs in this scenario? And acceptable to whom?
What ethical framework do we have for deciding that one particular solution is more acceptable than another, and why should we all agree on that framework?
And is viewing this as simply a 1D tradeoff of passenger safety vs. corporate profits the most useful way to frame the issue?
paulryanrogers · 1h ago
If the likelihood of occupants burning alive doubles, then I think it's safe to say that saving the money is unethical.
gryfft · 4h ago
The inspiration for the Narrator's career in Fight Club, I think.
In the 1980s there was such a car: it was a 1970s Pinto with wood panelling.
https://barnfinds.com/woodie-wagon-1975-ford-pinto-squire/
But on further reflection, I'm wondering what is an acceptable way to navigate those decisions?
If viewed entirely as a tradeoff between safety of that car's passengers vs. the total corporate profits, then the "right" answer is they should operate as a nonprofit that barely makes ends meet.
That's my intuition as well. But the questions (for me) remain:
What are the acceptable tradeoffs in this scenario? And acceptable to whom?
What ethical framework do we have for deciding that one particular solution is more acceptable than another, and why should we all agree on that framework?
And is viewing this as simply a 1D tradeoff of passenger safety vs. corporate profits the most useful way to frame the issue?