The Ford Pinto met federal safety standards yet it had a design flaw that result

ed in serious injuries and deaths.

Dennis Gioias fatal error comes from the impediments to responsible action. One of
the action is egocentric tendencies. A common feature of human experience is th
at we tend to interpret situations from very limited perspectives and it takes s
pecial efforts to acquire a more objective view. The complexity and intensity of
the recall coordinators job required that Gioia develop script schemas for simpli
fying the overwhelming amount of information with which he had to deal. Such scr
ipt schemas enabled Gioia to discern the characteristic hallmarks of problem cas
es that were likely to result in recall and to execute a complicated series of s
teps required to initiate a recall. However, the Pinto fires did not fit Gioias sc
ript schema, due to the fact that Pinto fires did not reflect any frequently rep
eated patterns or identifiable causes that would necessarily justify a recall. T
he egocentric mind set of Gioia is what lead him not to take any action. The fai
l of understanding things from other perspectives causes him to treat the situat
ion as an acceptable risk. Making decisions from this exclusively management per
spective led to many mistakes.
Besides that, Gioia also falls in groupthinking. A noteworthy feature of the org
anizational settings within which engineers work is that individuals tend to wor
k and deliberate in groups. This means that an engineer will often participate i
n group decision making rather than function as an individual decision maker. Al
though this may contribute to better decisions, it also creates well-known but c
ommonly overlooked tendencies to engage in what Irving Janis calls groupthinksitua
tions in which groups come to agreement at the expense of critical thinking. Con
centrating on groups that are characterized by high cohesiveness, solidarity, an
d loyalty, Janis identifies eight symptoms of groupthink. Groupthink creates an
illusion of invulnerability of the group to failure; causes a strong we-feeling that
views outsiders as adversaries or enemies and encourages shared stereotypes of
others; rationalizations that tend to shift responsibility to others; creates an
illusion of morality that assumes the inherent morality of the group and thereb
y discourages careful examination of the moral implications of what the group is
doing; leads a tendency of individual members toward self-censorship, resulting
from a desire not to rock the boat; create an illusion of unanimity, construing sil
ence of a group member as consent; is an application of direct pressure on those
who show signs of disagreement, often exercised by the group leader who interve
nes in an effort to keep the group unified; and finally, protecting the group fr
om dissenting views by preventing their introduction. Gioia decision making was
largely influenced by the corporate index. The socialization process and the ove
rriding influence of organizational culture provide a strong, if generally subtl
e, context for defining appropriate ways of seeing and understanding. There are
few more potent contexts than organizational settings. Ford and the vehicle reca
ll coordinator role provided a powerful context for developing scripts, which we
re inevitably and undeniably oriented toward ways of making sense that were infl
uenced by the corporate and industry culture. Due to the corporate index, Gioia
developed the scripts that responded to typical problems, not odd patterns like
those presented by the Pinto. This had blurred the judgement of Gioia from doing
the right thing.
Another action will be uncritical acceptance of authority. As an engineer, engin
eering codes of ethics emphasize the importance of engineers exercising independ
ent, objective judgement in performing their functions, which is often called pr
ofessional autonomy. At the same time, the code of ethics insist that engineers
have a duty of fidelity to their employers and clients. Dennis Gloias personal ide
ntity was heavily influenced by corporate identity. This causes him to work and
make decisions based on the corporate thinking.
There are two general ways of thinking about the decisions made by Dennis Gioia
in handling problems. The first appeals to the utilitarian ideal of maximizing g

ood consequences and minimizing bad consequences. The second appeals to the idea
l of respect for persons. Both approach have their own pros and cons, but in thi
s discussion, both approach will demonstrate that it is ultimately a loss if the
se injuries and deaths are ignored.
From the utilitarian thinking, it is all about bringing the greatest good for th
e greatest number. From the Cost-Benefit approach, the course of action that pro
duces the greatest benefit relative to cost is the one that should be chosen. Th
ere are things to be considered, first is to know which course of action will pr
oduce the most good in both the short and long term. Second, the utilitarian aim
is to make choices that promise to bring about the greatest amount of good. A t
hird difficulty with the utilitarian standard is that it seems sometimes to favo
ur the greater aggregate good at the expense of a vulnerable minority. From this
incident, if the Pinto case is ignored, in either short term or long term, the
choices will not bring greater amount of good. Furthermore, all the Pinto users
are at risk. These are not acceptable risk, taking account of the lost that will
be made if this case is ignored. More accidents will happen, and more deaths on
this case will occurred due to the major design flaw.
From the Act Utilitarian Approach, it focuses the attention on the consequences
of particular actions. In this approach, Gloia would need to identify that the a
vailable options in this situation, which is taking risks or recall the vehicle
immediately. Then, he would determine the appropriate audience for the options,
which were the Pinto drivers. Finally, he has to decide which option bring about
the greatest good for the drivers, taking into account harms as well as benefit
s. Through the Act Utilitarian Approach, the better alternative for Gloia is to
recall the vehicle immediately. Failing to do so causes the consequences of six
people died in Pinto fires after a rear-end collision.
Through the Rule Utilitarian Approach, this approach is to this sort of problem
is to propose rules that are justified by their utility. From the textbook, ther
e is an example which can be used to illustrate Gloias case. Suppose engineer Kare
n is facing a decision regarding whether to unilaterally substitute cheaper part
s for those specified in a contract. In deciding what she should do from a rule
utilitarian standpoint, she must first ask whether there are well-understood, ge
nerally observed rules that serve utilitarian ends that cover such situations. I
n thinking this through, she might consider the following possibilities:
Rule 1: Engineers may unilaterally substitute cheaper parts for those specified
in the contract.
Rule 2: Engineers may not unilaterally substitute cheaper parts for those specif
ied in the contract.
Note that rules chosen to analyze the case must be directly relevant to the case
circumstances and must not trivialize the case. For example, Karen should not u
se a rule such as It is always desirable to maximize company profits because this igno
res the specific issues of the case being tested. Next, Karen must determine the
audience, which in this case includes not only the producers and purchasers but
also the general public. She should then ask which of these two rules comes clo
sest to representing the audiences common expectations and whether meeting these e
xpectations generally serves overall utility. If she decides on Rule 2, then she
should follow this rule in her own action and not substitute the cheaper parts.
From Gloias case, he should also recall back the vehicle and not continue to risk
on it. This is because he is risking other peoples life on it.
In Respect for persons, the precepts of common morality protect the moral agency
of individual human beings. Maximizing the welfare of the majority must take se
cond place to this goal. People cannot be killed, deceived, denied their freedom
, or otherwise violated simply to bring about a greater total amount of utility.
Like utilitarian approaches to moral thinking, respect for persons approaches e
mploy the idea of universalizability. Universalizability is grounded in an idea
that is familiar to all of us. Most of us would acknowledge that if we think we

are acting in a morally acceptable fashion, then we should find it morally accep
table for others to do similar kinds of things in similar circumstances. This sa
me insight can lead us to ask questions about fairness and equal treatment. The
idea of universalizability implies that my judgment should not change simply bec
ause the roles are reversed. When we broaden our focus to consider what kind of
act is involved, the question of whether it is all right to falsify data is boun
d to appear quite different than when thinking only about the immediate situatio
n. Thus, Gloia should think from the point of view of the drivers as well. Even
though Pinto fires did not reflect any frequently repeated patterns or identifia
ble causes that would necessarily justify a recall, he cannot ignore the serious
injuries and deaths just because he is not involved in it.
In Self-Defeating Approach, which is another way of applying the fundamental ide
a of the universalizability principle is to ask whether I would be able to perfo
rm the action in question if everyone else performed the same action in the same
or similar circumstances, where if everyone else did what I am doing, would thi
s undermine my own ability to do the same thing? If everyone did not care and ig
nore the injuries and deaths, what will happen to the society? Once Gloia is abl
e to understand the bad consequences of this ignorance, he will be wiser in solv
ing this situation, and not making decisions without accountability and then wal
king away from them.
Though the Rights Approach, driver rights serve as a protective barrier, shieldi
ng individuals from unjustified infringements of their moral agency by others. I
t is the right of the car user to have their cars checked and flaw-free. When a
problem is noticed, it is also the right of the public to know the problem and g
et the recall of the vehicle for repair. Furthermore, it is also the right of th
e consumer to get good quality product, not vehicle with compromised safety.