Milton Friedman justifies not recalling the ford pinto
Summary
TLDRThe 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.
Outlines
🚗 Ford Pinto Safety Controversy
The paragraph discusses the Ford Pinto's safety issue, where the company allegedly produced a car with a faulty gas tank design that could explode in a rear-end collision. Ford was aware of the problem but chose not to install a $13 plastic block to prevent this due to cost considerations. An internal memo estimated 200 lives would be lost annually, with each life valued at $200,000. The speaker argues that Ford's decision, while economically rational, is morally wrong. The debate also touches on the principle of valuing human life and the balance between corporate cost and safety.
📜 Corporate Responsibility and Consumer Choice
This paragraph continues the discussion on corporate responsibility, suggesting that the government should intervene to ensure corporations provide full information to consumers. It argues that individuals should be free to decide how much they are willing to pay to reduce their risk of death. The speaker criticizes smokers for choosing to increase their risk despite knowing the health consequences. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the complexity of balancing principles of individual freedom and corporate responsibility.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ford Pinto
💡Rear-end collision
💡Cost-benefit analysis
💡Ethical considerations
💡Product safety
💡Internal memo
💡Lives lost
💡Principle
💡Free enterprise system
💡Risk
💡Smoking
Highlights
Ford Pinto's gas tank could explode in a rear-end collision due to the absence of a $13 plastic block.
Ford estimated the cost of installing the block would exceed the cost of saving lives.
Over seven years, over a thousand lives were lost due to the Pinto's design flaw.
The discussion questions whether Ford's decision was economically rational but morally wrong.
The principle that an infinite value should not be put on an individual life is debated.
The necessity of balancing principles and resources is emphasized.
The idea that a million people should not starve to provide one person with a completely safe car is presented.
The discussion points out that Ford's decision was not based on the principle but on cost-effectiveness.
The hypothetical scenario of Ford spending $200 million per life saved is discussed.
The argument that Ford should have considered redesigning the car to make it safer is mentioned.
The concept of balancing advantages and disadvantages in product design is explored.
The speaker refutes the idea that every single human life is sacred, advocating for principle balancing.
The discussion suggests that Ford should have disclosed the risk to consumers.
The principle of consumer freedom to decide the risk they are willing to bear is discussed.
The role of the government in requiring information disclosure and legal recourse is highlighted.
The subtlety and sophistication of ethical decisions in business are emphasized.
The real issue is framed as individuals' freedom to decide how much they are willing to pay for safety.
The speaker criticizes the illogical behavior of people who smoke despite knowing the health risks.
The discussion concludes with the idea that there are no easy answers to ethical dilemmas in business.
Transcripts
ample I have just one more this has to
do with the the Ford Pinto I'm not sure
if you're aware of the 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
thirteen dollar plastic block in front
of the gas tank and ford estimated in an
internal memo that that would cost about
two hundred lives a year and they
estimated further that the cost of each
life would be two hundred 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 two hundred
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 for to put them in a
nonetheless so you're the only West you
you know that you're really arguing
about the print you're not arguing about
principle you're no no no because you're
a tech not nobody can take the principle
nobody can accept the principle 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 someone 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 asked to you're
just arguing whether Ford used two
hundred thousand dollars was the right
number or not no I'm not I suppose it
would all hundred million dollars no
was it worth 200 million dollars what
should Ford have done 200 million
dollars for what suppose it would have
cost 200 million dollars per life saved
should Ford still have spent that 200
million dollars
you mean per that's not that's not
really the question yes it is a question
yeah 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 200 million dollars the cost
per life saved have been 200 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
sources that's more used a 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 principled position to
take and underlies it 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 that had been one life
of year so did it cost 40 million would
have been have been okay for Ford not to
predict 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 that there was an economy
effect you know when you buy a car you
know that your chance have been 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 the gas tank
would rupture
of course it is a question where 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 libel he has
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 is 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 for that you
should be free to do it if you don't
want to throw $50 we excuse me we have
to keep it to the audio over here so
then the government does have the right
to require information if corporations
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 mrs.
dim 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 wanted to berate Ford 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
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and the Profit Motive 2of2
Dilemma: Ford Pinto (Monetized Utilitarianism)
[Jutice course] Lecture 3 - Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham
Justice with Michael Sandel - BBC: Justice: Torture and human dignity
Alguns breves argumentos contra a eutanásia.
Algor-Ethics: Developing a Language for a Human-Centered AI | Padre Benanti | TEDxRoma
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)