Discussion

Read the No Hershey’s Kisses for Children of Africa case that can be found in Chapter 8 of the textbook. Using ethical theories and principles learned in this course, especially rights and responsibilities, analyze the moral worth of the decisions made in the case. Also discuss the various options open, and choose the one you think would have been the best. Justify the choice you make using resources from this course. You are encouraged to submit your own threads to this discussion as well as respond to threads left by other students.

You will be graded on the quality and completeness of your informed contributions to the discussion.

Substantial and constructive comments on the work of others may earn you extra credit.

Not posting, or posting single words, or meaningless statements like “Cool!,” “I Disagree,” or “LOL,” will receive no academic credit.

Grades may be lowered for posts that include inappropriate, intentionally offensive, angry, or destructive comments.

Read: Good Business, Chapter 8, Weighing Rights Against Responsibilities

Sample:

Analyzing the moral worth of Ford. To do this you would have to consider if Ford acted in the customers best interest or not. Ford has a responsibility to make decisions that will keep people as safe as possible when producing products. In this case, the big question is whether Ford should have changed the fuel tank design or added additional parts in order to make the car safer. When is a fatal car accident the fault of the manufacturer? Where do you draw the line as to where negligence starts on behalf of Ford? Car accidents are going to occur and its unlikely you can keep everyone safe. I do believe you can increase the chances of survival by adopting helpful safety measures.

I believe Ford applied Consequentialismfor Ethical Reasoning. They were focused on the results of what was going to happen and put profit before people. In this case, the choices were to fix the faulty gas tank or produce the car with the problem and deal with the fall out down the road. They were deciding on which would make the most sense and be the most profitable. Ford created a cost-benefit analysis that would help decide what change if any, to deal with the exploding gas tank situation. Ford chose to ignore the gas tank fix and produce the car with a knowing safety hazard.

Egoism was a factor that played a role with the decision making at Ford as well. Egoism is described as choosing options that benefit yourself and others close to you. Ford did this by putting profit ahead of safety.

Ford had a number of options to consider in this case. They include; re-design the rear end, install rubber bladder for $5.08, give consumers the chance to add fixable upgrade or make a public statement about the issue. Ford believed at the time these options would have been too costly and delay the release of the Pinto. Also, profits would suffer along with consumer confidence. Its easy to say now that the fix should have been the only solution. At that time, safety wasnt considered important in car design. President of Ford at the time, Lee Iacocca said, Safety doesnt Sell. This was the mindset back then when considering to spend more on something Ford felt was insignificant.

The creation of the cost-benefit analysis in this situation was not ethical. I believe it failed the Catholic social tradition principles by not participating in the betterment of society and failing to respect the dignity of life. I get the fact that cost analysis needs to be done. Insurance companies associate costs to the lives of people. They have costs on the degree someone gets injured in an industrial accident, for example. The difference I believe is, those are made with the intention and the hope nothing will go wrong but, just in case we are prepared. In the Ford case, the cost-benefit analysis was created knowing full well something tragic was going to happen. Its one thing to prepare with the intention of nothing happening. Ford prepared for the lose of lives before anything happen.

The best solution in my opinion would be to spend the $5.08 and fix the issue. Using the utilitarianism concept, which is choosing an option that would do the greatest good for everyone while taking life into consideration. Fixing the problem would have put Ford in the position of trying to do the greatest good for the most people. This would have created a sense that Ford was righting a wrong. This solution would likely result in less blow back if something did happen in the future. Ford can be confident in saying they did the best they could and were upfront about the issue instead of hiding the problem. Putting peoples lives in danger in order to save money is a highly unethical decision. People want to believe the company is making the best decisions possible when it comes to keeping them safe.

Only use what is provided no outside sources