Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto

Summary

The transcript discusses Ford's decision regarding the Pinto, where the company chose not to install a $13 plastic block to prevent gas tank explosions in rear-end collisions, leading to over a thousand deaths. The conversation explores the ethical implications of balancing costs with human lives. One speaker defends the principle that individuals should decide the risks they're willing to take and criticizes Ford for not being transparent about the risks. The discussion raises deeper questions about corporate responsibility, consumer freedom, and the value of human life in economic decisions.

Takeaways

• 🚗 The Ford Pinto was produced with a known design flaw that could cause the gas tank to explode in a rear-end collision.
• 🔍 Ford estimated that not installing a $13 plastic block would result in approximately 200 deaths per year.
• 💵 Ford calculated that the cost of installing the safety block in each car would exceed the cost of the potential lives lost.
• 🤔 The discussion raises ethical questions about whether it's acceptable to weigh human lives against financial costs.
• 💭 The conversation suggests that principles must sometimes be balanced against practical considerations, such as economic feasibility.
• 🚫 The speaker argues against the idea that every human life has infinite value when considering resource allocation.
• 💼 The debate touches on the role of corporations in balancing safety with cost and whether they should disclose risks to consumers.
• 🏥 The example of smoking is used to illustrate the concept of individuals choosing to accept risks despite knowing the potential consequences.
• 📉 The discussion implies that consumers may not be willing to pay significantly more for increased safety.
• 📚 The conversation suggests that complex issues like these cannot be reduced to simple principles and require nuanced consideration.

Q & A

What is the main ethical dilemma discussed in the script regarding the Ford Pinto?

The ethical dilemma revolves around Ford's decision to not install a $13 plastic block in the Pinto's gas tank, knowing it would lead to fatal explosions in rear-end collisions. The company calculated that the cost of saving lives was higher than the cost of potential lawsuits for the lost lives.

What rationale did Ford use to justify not installing the $13 plastic block?

Ford conducted a cost-benefit analysis, estimating that saving lives by installing the block would cost more than paying for the deaths caused by accidents. They assigned a monetary value to human life and decided that the cost of saving 200 lives per year was not worth the expense.

What does the speaker mean when saying 'you're not arguing about principle'?

The speaker suggests that the person questioning Ford's decision isn't debating the core principle of assigning value to human life but rather whether Ford's specific calculations and price for each life were appropriate. The argument focuses on whether $200,000 per life is a reasonable number.

How does the speaker compare the decision to a hypothetical scenario involving a higher cost per life saved?

The speaker asks if the same criticism would hold if the cost per life saved was $200 million instead of $200,000. This hypothetical is used to challenge whether the criticism is based on principle or simply on the specific dollar value Ford used in its calculations.

What is the speaker's stance on the individual's right to choose regarding safety costs?

The speaker argues that individuals should be free to decide how much they are willing to pay for reducing their own risk of death. The focus is on personal choice in a free market, where consumers can decide if they want to pay extra for additional safety.

How does the speaker relate smoking to the discussion about safety and risk?

The speaker uses smoking as an example of people knowingly engaging in behavior that increases their risk of death. Despite the clear risks, many people choose to smoke, which the speaker views as illogical but consistent with personal freedom to take risks.

What role does the speaker believe the government should play in corporate responsibility?

The speaker believes the government should not mandate safety features like the $13 block but should instead provide courts of law where companies can be sued for fraud if they deliberately conceal relevant information about risks. The focus is on transparency and allowing the market to decide.

Why does the speaker reject the idea that every human life is sacred in this context?

The speaker argues that if society valued every human life infinitely, resources would be misallocated, leading to undesirable outcomes like millions of people starving to save one life. Thus, trade-offs must be made between safety and other societal needs.

What alternative solution does the speaker suggest Ford could have considered?

The speaker suggests that if the cost of adding the safety feature made the car too expensive for its market, Ford could have redesigned the entire vehicle to make it cheaper, rather than just weighing the cost of one safety feature against human lives.

What is the key principle that the speaker believes is often overlooked in this debate?

The key principle is that individuals should have the freedom to decide how much they are willing to pay for reducing their own risk. The speaker emphasizes that the real issue is about personal choice and market freedom, not just the cost-benefit analysis Ford used.