please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by

please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by midnight, Saturday (200word minimum). After reading the article and watching the video, technically, what Ford’s top management decided to do was indeed illegal because the contemporary U.S. legislation introduced minimal safety requirements that every vehicle sold in the U.S. had to meet. Specifically, every vehicle had to be designed in such a way that its fuel tank could remain intact even upon the impact at a speed of 20 miles per hour or less. Nevertheless, Ford’s Pinto model did not pass this crash test, but the company still began manufacturing the product despite being aware of the potentially deadly flaw. Ford’s actions can be considered unacceptable from the point of view of most ethical theories. Indeed, Ford could be condemned from positions of Kantianism because the company demonstrated neglect towards human life and deceived consumers by not informing them about the car’s dangerousness. In a similar fashion, Ford’s actions were not consistent with principles of Utilitarianism because protecting human life and health, as the ultimate good, did not require unreasonable costs. Since Ford’s shareholders were not particularly concerned about human life, I would advocate the decision to fix the Pinto model design by referring to ethical framework suggested by Friedman. According to UFP News (2012), Friedman believed that a certain act could be considered permissible as long its benefits outweighed costs (including the risk of any damage). I could urge Ford’s shareholders to apply the same approach and compare benefits and cost of not fixing the Pinto Model. Specifically, I would pay their attention to the fact that the amount of money saved would be minimal while costs, especially, in the long-term perspective could be enormous. Indeed, the company could risk facing heavy penalties for violating federal legislation and be forced to pay fines and compensations to numerous plaintiffs in likely civil lawsuits. Furthermore, I would emphasize that the company’s reputation could be severely damaged by its deliberate violation of federal legislation and a failure to warn buyers. Hence, I would promote the decision to fix the Pinto model as an opportunity to increase shareholder’s profits in the long run please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by midnight, Saturday (200word minimum).

please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by

please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by midnight, Saturday (200word minimum). After reading the article and watching the video, technically, what Ford’s top management decided to do was indeed illegal because the contemporary U.S. legislation introduced minimal safety requirements that every vehicle sold in the U.S. had to meet. Specifically, every vehicle had to be designed in such a way that its fuel tank could remain intact even upon the impact at a speed of 20 miles per hour or less. Nevertheless, Ford’s Pinto model did not pass this crash test, but the company still began manufacturing the product despite being aware of the potentially deadly flaw. Ford’s actions can be considered unacceptable from the point of view of most ethical theories. Indeed, Ford could be condemned from positions of Kantianism because the company demonstrated neglect towards human life and deceived consumers by not informing them about the car’s dangerousness. In a similar fashion, Ford’s actions were not consistent with principles of Utilitarianism because protecting human life and health, as the ultimate good, did not require unreasonable costs. Since Ford’s shareholders were not particularly concerned about human life, I would advocate the decision to fix the Pinto model design by referring to ethical framework suggested by Friedman. According to UFP News (2012), Friedman believed that a certain act could be considered permissible as long its benefits outweighed costs (including the risk of any damage). I could urge Ford’s shareholders to apply the same approach and compare benefits and cost of not fixing the Pinto Model. Specifically, I would pay their attention to the fact that the amount of money saved would be minimal while costs, especially, in the long-term perspective could be enormous. Indeed, the company could risk facing heavy penalties for violating federal legislation and be forced to pay fines and compensations to numerous plaintiffs in likely civil lawsuits. Furthermore, I would emphasize that the company’s reputation could be severely damaged by its deliberate violation of federal legislation and a failure to warn buyers. Hence, I would promote the decision to fix the Pinto model as an opportunity to increase shareholder’s profits in the long run please respond in a separate post(s) to your classmates by midnight, Saturday (200word minimum).