Question

2. Discussion questions pg. 109

6. Answer the question posed in Gioia’s “Reflections”: is a person behaving unethically if the situation was not even constructed in ethical terms -- if there was no ethical awareness?

7. Who should make the decision about taking risks with others’ lives in designing products?

9. How do you feel about the use of cost-benefit analysis where human life is part of the cost calculations? Might the infusion of moral language have changed the decision-makers’ thinking? For example, what if decision-makers had talked about their responsibility for killing 180 human beings?

10. given that all automobiles are unsafe to some degree, where do you draw the line on product safety? How safe is safe enough – and who decides?

Answer 1

PLEASE LIKE THIS ANSWER, IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU!!!

Answer the question posed in Gioia’s “Reflections”: Is a person behaving unethically if the situation was not even construed in ethical terms—if there was no ethical awareness?

Gioia as the recall coordinator had an obligation and a duty (to Ford and the consumers) to make sure he covered all grounds. There were multiple red flags and concerns surrounding the Ford Pinto yet he claims he wasn't aware. It was his job to be aware of the fact that Ford rushed production and they were susceptible to exploding due to low speed crashes. So if they were getting all those reports of cars exploding he should've been concerned as the Ford Recall Coordinator. It's his job to be aware.

Who should make the decision about taking risks with others’ lives in designing products?

Everyone involved in designing a product that risks someone's life should be involved in the decision, because at the end of the day they are responsible as well. The decision shouldn’t fall solely on one person if multiple people are involved, the responsibility falls on everyone so why should the decision fall on one person only. You're not any less responsible because you were working in a team.

How do you feel about the use of cost-benefit analysis where human life is part of the cost calculations? Might the infusion of moral language have changed the decision-makers’ thinking? For example, what if decision-makers had talked about their responsibility for killing 180 human beings?

I believe that if the decision makers sat down and talked about their responsibility for killing 180 people they would not be able to live with themselves. I also believe if they sat down and talked with the families of the 180 victims their decisions might have changed because the families would've used less politically correct language. If they weren't so blind to calculations and saw human lives as invaluable and not a number on a cost benefit analysis graph they would've changed their decision. I think it's shameless to add a human life as a part of cost calculations, I also believe it's unethical.

Given that all automobiles are unsafe to some degree, where do you draw the line on product safety? How safe is safe enough – and who decides?

Accidents involving cars are inevitable and everytime you place yourself in the driver's seat you are opening yourself to a certain amount of risk, however you would want to be driving a car that you know has no mechanical issues or faulty parts because that minimizes the risk. You want to be driving a car knowing that the manufacturer took all the safety precautions needed. Safe enough should be a car that has gone through multiple levels of testing and has no known issues unlike the Ford Pinto when it was produced. The people designing and testing the car should be the people deciding and the question that should always be on their mind is, would I allow a loved one to drive this car?

PLEASE LIKE THIS ANSWER, IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU!!!