Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive 2of2
Summary
TLDRThe transcript discusses the Ford Pinto case, where the company allegedly knew of a design flaw that could cause the gas tank to explode in a rear-end collision. Ford decided not to install a $13 plastic block due to cost considerations, leading to an estimated 200 deaths per year. The debate centers on the ethical implications of valuing human life against corporate costs, the principle of individual choice in risk-taking, and the role of the government in ensuring consumer safety and information disclosure.
Takeaways
- 🚗 The Ford Pinto controversy: The script discusses the Ford Pinto's design flaw where the gas tank could explode in a rear-end collision due to the absence of a $13 plastic block.
- 💡 Cost vs. Safety: Ford allegedly calculated the cost of installing the safety block versus the cost of potential lives lost, deciding the former was more expensive than the latter.
- 📝 Internal Memo: The script mentions an internal Ford memo that estimated 200 lives would be lost annually due to this design flaw.
- 💰 Economic Calculation: Ford valued a human life at $200,000, calculated the cost of saving lives, and determined it was cheaper to not install the safety blocks.
- 🤔 Ethical Dilemma: The discussion raises the question of whether it's ethical for a company to weigh human lives against financial costs.
- 🔢 Questioning the Numbers: The script suggests questioning the validity of Ford's calculations and whether $200,000 was the correct value to place on a life.
- 🚫 Principle Over Profit: It's argued that no infinite value should be put on an individual life, as resources are finite and must be allocated wisely.
- 🛑 Balancing Act: The conversation highlights the need to balance principles with practical considerations in decision-making.
- 🏁 Free Enterprise vs. Regulation: The script touches on the debate over whether the government should regulate corporate practices or let the free market decide.
- 🚦 Consumer Choice: It's suggested that consumers should have the freedom to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept when purchasing products.
- 🚨 Transparency and Disclosure: The discussion points out the importance of corporations being transparent about potential risks associated with their products.
Q & A
What was the issue with the Ford Pinto's gas tank design?
-The Ford Pinto had a design flaw where, in the event of a rear-end collision, the gas tank would blow up due to the absence of a $13 plastic block that could have been installed in front of it to prevent such incidents.
What was Ford's estimated cost of not installing the plastic block in each car?
-Ford estimated that the cost of not installing the plastic block would be about 200 lives a year, with each life valued at $200,000, leading to a calculation that the cost of installing the blocks would be more than the cost of saving those lives.
How many lives were reportedly lost due to the Ford Pinto's design flaw over seven years?
-Over the seven years that the Ford Pinto was produced with the known design flaw, over a thousand lives were reportedly lost.
What ethical principle is being debated in the script regarding the value of human life?
-The script debates the ethical principle of whether an infinite value should be put on an individual life versus the cost-benefit analysis that Ford performed, which led to a decision not to implement a safety feature due to its perceived financial implications.
What is the counter-argument presented against Ford's decision based on the principle of individual life value?
-The counter-argument is that Ford should not have prioritized financial considerations over human lives, suggesting that no amount of money should be a factor in decisions that directly impact the safety and lives of individuals.
What alternative actions could Ford have taken according to the discussion?
-Ford could have considered redesigning the car to make the safety feature cheaper or marketed the cars in a different economic bracket to accommodate the cost of the plastic block, ensuring safety without significantly raising the car's price.
What is the speaker's stance on the principle of balancing principles?
-The speaker argues that principles have to be balanced and that it is not acceptable to put a monetary value on human life, suggesting that Ford's decision was not a principled one.
What is the speaker's view on the consumer's right to know about the risks associated with a product?
-The speaker believes that consumers should be free to decide what risks they are willing to bear, implying that Ford should have disclosed the increased risk associated with the Pinto's design flaw.
What role does the speaker suggest the government should play in such situations?
-The speaker suggests that the government should provide courts of law where corporations that deliberately conceal material information can be sued for fraud, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in the market.
How does the speaker relate the issue of smoking to the discussion on the Ford Pinto?
-The speaker uses smoking as an example of individuals knowingly increasing their risk of death and choosing not to pay for reducing that risk, highlighting the complexity of decisions involving personal risk and financial considerations.
What is the speaker's final point on the complexity of ethical decisions involving cost and human life?
-The speaker concludes that such decisions are subtle and sophisticated, and that easy answers are not available. The fundamental principle should be that individuals are free to decide how much they are willing to pay to reduce their chances of death.
Outlines
🚗 Ford Pinto Controversy: Ethical and Economic Dilemma
The first paragraph discusses the Ford Pinto controversy, where the company allegedly produced a car with a known design flaw that could cause the gas tank to explode in a rear-end collision. Ford is said to have decided not to install a $13 plastic block due to cost considerations, estimating that the cost of saving lives would be outweighed by the expense of the modification. The discussion delves into the ethical implications of valuing human life against financial cost, with the argument that Ford's decision, while economically rational, may be morally questionable. It also touches upon the broader topic of balancing principles and practicality, including the responsibility of corporations and the right of consumers to be informed about risks.
📜 Corporate Responsibility and Consumer Rights
The second paragraph continues the debate on corporate ethics, focusing on the role of government and the legal system in holding corporations accountable for concealing information that could affect consumer safety. It argues that while individuals should have the freedom to decide how much risk they are willing to accept, corporations should not be able to conceal critical safety information. The speaker suggests that the real issue is not about the accuracy of the numbers used by Ford to justify their decision, but rather the principle of whether individuals should be free to make choices about their own safety. The paragraph concludes with a reflection on personal responsibility and the illogical nature of people's willingness to accept certain risks, using smoking as an example.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ford Pinto
💡safety flaw
💡cost-benefit analysis
💡ethical dilemma
💡human life value
💡corporate responsibility
💡consumer information
💡free enterprise system
💡product liability
💡risk assessment
💡ethical principles
Highlights
Ford knowingly produced the Pinto with a flawed gas tank design that could explode in a rear-end collision.
Ford chose not to install a $13 plastic block that could have prevented the gas tank explosions.
Internal Ford memo estimated 200 lives would be lost per year due to the Pinto's design flaw.
Ford calculated the cost of a life at $200,000 and determined it was cheaper to not fix the defect.
Over seven years, over a thousand lives were lost due to the Ford Pinto's design flaw.
The discussion raises ethical questions about valuing human life in cost-benefit analyses.
The principle that an infinite value should not be put on an individual life was debated.
The importance of balancing principles with practical resource allocation was emphasized.
The argument was made that Ford should have disclosed the risk to consumers to allow them to make an informed choice.
The debate touched on the broader topic of consumer freedom to choose risk levels in products.
The role of government in regulating safety and requiring transparency from corporations was discussed.
The conversation highlighted the complexity and nuances of ethical decision-making in business.
The principle of individual freedom to decide how much to pay for risk reduction was mentioned.
The speaker expressed a personal view that people are often illogical in their willingness to pay for risk reduction.
The example of smoking was given to illustrate people's inconsistent attitudes towards risk and cost.
The need for a more sophisticated approach to ethical dilemmas in business was emphasized.
The conversation concluded that there are no easy answers to ethical questions involving human life and cost.
Transcripts
have lyov just one more this has to do
with the the Ford Pinto I'm not sure if
you're aware of recent revelations that
have come out about the production of
that car Ford produced it knowing full
well that in any rear-end collision the
gas tank would blow up because they had
failed to install a 13 dollar plastic
block in front of the gas tank and ford
estimated in an internal memo that that
would cost about 200 lives a year and
they estimated further that the cost of
each life would be 200 thousand dollars
they multiplied and they found that the
cost of installing those blocks in each
of the cars would be more than the cost
of saving those 200 lives and over the
past seven years the car has been
produced and over a thousand lives have
been lost
seems to me that Ford did what would be
the right thing according to your policy
and yet that seems to me to be very
wrong well let me ask you let's suppose
it would have cost a billion dollars per
person should Ford to put them in a
nonetheless so you're early on Weston
you know that you're really arguing
about the print you're not arguing about
principle your no no no because you
attend not nobody can take the principle
nobody can accept the principle that
that an infinite value should be put on
an individual life because in order to
get the money involved in order to get
the resources involved it's not money in
order to get the resort they have to
come from somewhere and you want the
policy which is maximizes a situation
overall you cannot accept a situation
that a million people should starve in
order to provide one person with a car
that is completely safe that's
absolutely right right and there's well
you're not arguing anything about
principle you're just asking you're just
arguing whether Ford used two hundred
thousand dollars was the right number or
not no I'm not I suppose it was hundred
million dollars No
what was it were $200,000,000 what
Ford have done two hundred million
dollars for what suppose it would have
cost two hundred million dollars per
life saved should Ford still have spent
that two hundred million dollars you
mean put that's not that's not really
the question yes it is a question yes
that's the question that's the only
principle involved I don't know whether
Ford did the right came to the right
answer or not what's the question of
whether these numbers are valid numbers
for the relative cost of different
things you're not arguing about a
principle if you once agree with me that
have been two hundred million dollars
the cost per life save it have been two
hundred million dollars you would not
argue look let me go back for a moment
can I say something in response to that
if Ford had not been able to market
those cars in the same kind of economic
bracket because of the price of
installing this one plastic block that
would be a different question maybe for
it could have considered redesigning the
whole car so as to make it cheaper but
what we're talking about is balancing
advantages and balance organs that's
more us the minute your only time a
supporter of abortion therefore I don't
believe that every single human life is
sacred I believe that principles have to
be balanced and yet I don't see Ford
spending $13 less on each car at the
cost of 200 lives a year as being a
principal position to take an adventure
logically there is one fewer life a year
so that the $13 per car so that that one
life instead of being 200 times
what's 200 times 200,000 it's a 40
million suppose it had been one life of
year so did it cost 40 million would it
then have been okay for Ford nothing
ever did that one life is going to be
cost because of a physical defect in the
car this was a clear I know I know I
know but this is you're evading the
question of principle no I'm not I'm
saying that they know before they put
the car out then there was a mechanic a
fact you know when you buy a car you
know that your chance of being killed in
a Pinto is greater than your chance of
being killed in a Mack truck no I didn't
I didn't know that again
tank with rupture of course it is a
question
well we one of us separately in this
room could at a cost reduce his risk of
dying tomorrow you don't have to walk
across the street of course the question
is is he willing to pay for it and the
question here he should be raising if he
wants to raise a question of principle
we likely have raised is whether Ford
wasn't required to attach to this car
the statement we have made this car $13
cheaper and therefore it is one whatever
the percentage it is one percent more
risky for you to buy it but while that
then he would be arguing a real question
of principle why should they do that or
doesn't that interfere with the free
enterprise system that you're counting
why not the consumer should be free to
decide what risky wants to bear if you
want to pay $13 extra move out
you should be free to do it but if you
don't want to throw $50 wait excuse me
we have to keep it to the audio over
here so then the government does have
the right to require information of
corporation I don't know that right no
no the government has a right to provide
courts of law in which corporations that
deliberately concealed material that is
relevant can be sued for fraud and made
to pay very heavy expenses and that is a
desirable part of the market of course
what I'm trying to say to you is that
these things are really a little bit
more subtle and sophisticated than you
are at first led to believe there are no
you can't get easy answers along this
line because your way of putting it
really only doesn't really get up the
fundamental principles involved the real
fundamental principle is that people
individually should be free to decide
how much they're willing to pay for
reducing the chances of their death now
people mostly aren't willing to pay very
much I personally regard this as very
very illogical I see people on all sides
of me smoking now there's no doubt
nobody denies that that increases their
chance of death I'm not saying they
shouldn't be free to smoke don't miss of
them I just think they're fools to do it
and uh and I know they're fools because
I quit on the basis of the evidence 18
years ago but that's the real issue and
if you want it to be right forward you
ought to be rated on those terms not on
the ground that you don't think they use
the right numbers now look I don't think
we can keep on going very I'm afraid
we're going to run out of tape and I'm
afraid I'm going to run out of voice so
I think I'll call again
you
you
関連動画をさらに表示
Dilemma: Ford Pinto (Monetized Utilitarianism)
03/24 - Putting a Price Tag on Life - HARVARD's Michael Sandel's JUSTICE
Ford's Disaster: The Pinto
Psychological Safety On Teams | Keynote Speaker David Burkus on Building Trusting Teams
GM Recall : The Switch From Hell - the fifth estate
SE ESTREMECE EL REAGGEATTÓN POR DECISIÓN FEDERAL DEL GRAN COMBO - Usaron a los Beatles para decidir
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)