On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:26 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > But in any event, the decision of where to install the Pinto gas tank was not > primarily driven by a narrow goal of profitablity, but by a strategic goal of > producing a car that was less than 2000 pounds and $2000 dollars. The > placement of the tank was primarily driven by the fact that any alternative > would have excessively reduced the trunk space in a car of that size. Ford > was aware that the placement of the gas tank created special risks, but the > placement of the gas tank anywhere would have created special risks (which is > also inherent in producing any smaller/less expensive car). Ford did prepare > cost-benefit analysis for certain changes to the tank (which valued a human > life at $200,000), but the analysis was not for internal decision-making but > for the NHSTA, which was considering a rule change for all automobiles, not > simply the Pinto, and Ford wanted to show the cost for millions of cars vs. > the expected life savings (the $200k number was used by the NHSTA). The > analysis did not take into consideration any possibility that the tank > placement would be deemed a defect and there would be jury awards. Ford > never thought the car was unsafe or had a design defect. At the end of the > day, while the Pinto had special risks, it was no worse than other comparable > cars produced at the time. >
David, So you agree that it is ethically abhorrent to do cost-benefit analysis based on narrow profit/loss considerations alone? If so, I think that'll help narrow down the points of contention here a lot. -raghu. -- Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
