Consequentialism
 Consequentialists
maintain that whether
an action is morally right or wrong
depends on the action's consequences.
 In any situation, the morally right thing to
do is whatever will have the best
consequences.
 Consequentialist theories are sometimes
called teleological theories.
 Note:
not ‘theological’ – this is a misprint in the
notes (6-5)
What Kind of Consequences?
 Consequentialism
isn't very informative
unless it's combined with a theory about
what the best consequences are.
 Utilitarianism
is such a theory.
– Utilitarianism is the most influential variety
of consequentialism
Utilitarianism
 The
Basis of Utilitarianism: ask what has
intrinsic value and assess the
consequences of an action in terms of
intrinsically valuable things.
– Instrumental Value - a thing has only
instrumental value if it is only valuable for what it
may get you

e.g., money
– Intrinsic Value - a thing has intrinsic value if you
value it for itself

i.e., you’d value it even if it brought you nothing else
 What,
if anything, has intrinsic value?
Only Happiness has Intrinsic Value



What Utilitarians Think Is Intrinsically
Valuable: happiness (or pleasure or satisfaction…)
"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness." (John Stuart Mill's Greatest Happiness
Principle)
In other words, judge an action by the total amount of
happiness and unhappiness it creates
Utilitarianism
An Introduction to the Moral
Theories of Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill
Ethical Judgments


Ethical philosophy differs from the
sciences because it is normative or
prescriptive, rather than descriptive.
In other words, ethics tell us how we
ought to act or what we should do,
while the sciences are more likely to
observe how things are in nature or
society.
Making Ethical Judgments
Areas of Emphasis in Making Moral
Judgments
Purpose or Act, Rule,
Motive
or Maxim
Results or
Consequences
Making Ethical Judgments in
Utilitarianism



Utilitarianism says that the Result or the
Consequence of an Act is the real measure
of whether it is good or bad.
This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.
Theories, like this one, that emphasize the
results or consequences are called
teleological or consequentialist.
Jeremy
Bentham
Bentham’s Formulation of
Utilitarianism



Man is under two great masters, pain and
pleasure.
The great good that we should seek is
happiness. (a hedonistic perspective)
Those actions whose results increase
happiness or diminish pain are good. They
have “utility.”
Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic
Calculus


In determining the quantity of happiness
that might be produced by an action, we
evaluate the possible consequences by
applying several values:
Intensity, duration, certainty or
uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness,
fecundity, purity, and extent.
Four Theses of Utilitarianism




Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is
determined solely by their consequences.
Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act
produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that
pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek
and that we should seek.
Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest
good consequences and the least bad.
Universalism: The consequences to be
considered are those of everyone affected, and
everyone equally.
Two Formulations of Utilitarian
Theory
Greatest Happiness:
Principle of
Utility: The best
action is that
which produces
the greatest
happiness
and/or reduces
pain.
We ought to do
that which
produces the
greatest
happiness and
least pain for the
greatest number
of people.
Two Types of Utilitarianism

Act: An Action is
right if and only if it
produces the
greatest balance of
pleasure over pain
for the greatest
number. (Jeremy
Bentham)

Rule: An action is right
if and only if it conforms
to a set of rules the
general acceptance of
which would produce
the greatest balance of
pleasure over pain for
the greatest number.
(John Stuart Mill)
Application of Utilitarian Theory


If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in
war, and thereby attack an enemy force
and kill several hundred enemy soldiers,
that is a morally good choice even though
the eighty might be lost.
If lying or stealing will actually bring about
more happiness and/or reduce pain, Act
Utilitarianism says we should lie and steal
in those cases.
Application of Utilitarian Theory
Actual Cases

The Ford Pinto case: A defective vehicle
would sometimes explode when hit.

The model was not recalled and repaired by Ford
because they felt it was cheaper to pay the
liability suits than to recall and repair all the
defective cars.
J. Bentham
(1748-1843)
Utilitarianism: the good is the
greatest amount of happiness for
the greatest number
J. S. Mill
(1808-73)
 Bentham: the hedonic calculus is based on the
intensity, duration, certainty, immediacy,
fecundity, purity, & number of people
 J. S. Mill: the quality of pleasures needs to be
considered, determined by competent judges
 Objection: this is elitist; why not use the criterion
for evaluating pleasures to judge morality itself?
Variations of Utilitarianism
 Act utilitarianism: we are obligated to do the
specific act that produces the greatest amount
of happiness (regardless of rules or justice)
Objections:
• consequence calculation is difficult
• the end justifies the means
 Rule utilitarianism: we should follow moral
rules that, when acted upon, generally produce
the greatest amount of happiness
Objections:
• what about when rules conflict?
• in some cases, why not exceptions?
Reply: then why have any theory at all?
Ford Pinto and utilitarian
ethics
What are the essential features of
utilitarianism?
• Consequentialist
• Maximise pleasure (Bentham) or
happiness (Mill)
• Calculate empirically balance of pleasure
over pain or happiness over misery
• Tends to ignore individual rights, classic
criticism – minority is sacrificed for majority
• Does Mill’s rule utilitarianism get round this
problem?
Aims of this lesson
• Revise utilitarian ethics
• Link it to cost-benefit analysis used by
businesses
• Consider the case of the Ford Pinto (1972)
• Evaluate whether utilitarian ethics is to
blame – does the criticism hold good?
We start by viewing a Youtube clip on the
Ford Pinto. What are three key facts you
can find? View actively!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGbrlufr
yw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGbrlufr
yw
Style over safety?
• Because of styling and cost constraints, locating
the gas tank over the axle, which was known to
prevent fire in rear-end crashes, was
undesirable. The Pinto had to sell for $2,000.
• The axle arrangement, in concert with styling
constraints, resulted in a small luggage
compartment that would be limited in carrying
long objects such as golf clubs.
• To increase the size of the luggage
compartment, the gas tank was relocated to the
car’s rear (Strobel, 1994)
This fault meant that Ford’s own
test result = explosion in 8/11 tests
Some cost /benefit facts
• The piece of plastic cost $11 a car to fit
• Estimated cost of fitting $137m
• Estimated cost of casualties $48m in
compensation
• But ….. a problem with utilitarian ethics is
we cannot know precisely what the
consequences will be….
• Actual compensation cost was millions,
and in 1978 a recall took place anyway.
Reputation and ethical outcomes
• 500 burn fatalities in crashes (Dowie, 1977).
Two million Pintos were sold.
• In September 1978, Ford issued a recall for 1.5
million 1971-76, making it the largest recall in
the industry up to that time.
• One result was the largest personal injury
judgment ever ($6.6m awarded).
• In the 1979 landmark case State of Indiana v.
Ford Motor Co., Ford notoriously became the
first American corporation ever prosecuted on
criminal homicide charges. Ford was found not
guilty in March 1980 (Schwartz, 1991).
Evaluate
• Is cost/benefit analysis to blame – or poor
cost/benefit analysis based on
Government figures ($200,000 per human
life)?
• Is utilitarian ethics to blame? Or a failure
to do a proper analysis of likely
consequences based on known facts –
that in two-thirds of rear end crash tests
the tank exploded?
INTRODUCTION
• Demand for sub-compact
cars
• Designed in May of 1968
by the vice-president of
Ford Motor Company, Lee
Iacocca
• Weighed 2000 pounds,
cost $2000 and
manufactured in 2 years
29
COUNTERPARTS
Volkswagen Beetle
Ford Pinto
30
SAFETY DOESN’T SELL?
There was a corporate belief, attributed to Lee
Iacocca himself, which stated "safety doesn't sell.”
“This became a corporate belief what we can see where it led the Ford
motor company, i.e. towards a hasty design of Ford Pinto which
eventually came out as being hugely defected”.
31
THE ACCIDENTS
• In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen
year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto car.
• Their car was struck by another car traveling
approximately thirty miles per hour.
• The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto
• Killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with
devastating injuries.
• Jury awarded $560,000 to the Gray family and $2.5
million to Grimshaw in compensatory damages.
32
THE ACCIDENTS
• It was observed that
collisions from the back
at over 30 miles per
hour would cause the
rear of the car to buckle
up, right up to the back
seat.
33
THE ACCIDENTS
• Ford was involved in yet another controversial case
involving the Pinto.
•
The automobile's fuel system design contributed to
the death of three women on August 10, 1918
• Their car was hit by another vehicle traveling at a
relatively low speed by a car driven by a drunk man.
• The fact that Ford had chosen earlier not to upgrade
the fuel system design became an issue of public
debate.
34
35
THE ACCIDENTS
• On August 10, 1978, on U.S Highway 33, a van
weighing over 400 pounds traveling at fifty five miles
an hour stuck the stopped Pinto, resulting in the death
of two teenage girls, one severely injured, when the
car burst into flames.
36
THE ACCIDENTS
• Colliding with the Pinto at 31 mph or above
• There were chances that its doors would jam and the
trapped passengers would get burned to death.
37
QUESTIONABLE DESIGN
The design of Pinto was questionable. The design
problems first came into public attention in
August,1977 in an article of “Mother Jones
Magazine”. This article condemned the Ford Motor
Company and the author was later given a “Pulitzer
Prize”
38
39
THE PROBLEMS
• The controversy surrounding the Ford Pinto concerned the
placement of the automobile's fuel tank. It was located behind
the rear axle, instead of above it.
• The problem with this design was that it made Pinto more
vulnerable to rear-end collisions.
• The gas tank and the rear axle were separated by only nine
inches.
• There were bolts that were positioned in a manner that
threatened the gas tank.
• Finally, the fuel filler pipe design would disconnect from the
tank in the event of an accident, causing gas spillage that
could lead to dangerous fires.
40
HOW FORD DEFENDED ITSELF ?
After these accidents, the Ford motor company decided to do a
risk/benefit analysis based on the improvement of the fuel tank.
Ford stated that its reason for doing a risk/benefit analysis was
that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NATSA) required them to do so..
The risk/benefit approach excuses a defendant if the monetary
costs of making a production change are greater than the
"societal benefit" of that change.
41
THE BPL FORMULA
Ford used the BPL formula to carry out a cost/benefit analysis.
Back-end story:
This formula was based on a case of Anna C who lost cargo
in a river. She appealed for the recovery of lost cargo in court.
The loss was also due to her negligence so the court defined
some boundaries, and Judge Learned Hand presented the
theory of negligence down to an algebraic equation
B<PL
Where
B = Burden of adequate precautions
P= probability that the defendant’s actions will result in an
accident
L= loss/cost of accident if it occurred.
42
DEFINITION OF BPL
If the expected harm exceeded the cost to take precaution,
the defendant was obligated to take the precaution, and if they
did not, would be held liable. If the cost was larger than the
expected harm, the defendant was not expected to take the
precaution. If there was an accident, he was not found liable.
43
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The first cost benefit analysis showed the cost per vehicle = $11
Ford's Cost/Benefit Analysis
Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage
REFERENCE :
From Ford Motor Company internal memorandum: "Fatalities Associated with
Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." Source: Douglas Birsch and John H.
Fielder, THE FORD PINTO CASE: A STUDY IN APPLIED ETHICS.
BUSINESS, AND TECHNOLOGY. p. 28.1994.
44
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
One document that was not sent to Washington by Ford was a
"Confidential" cost analysis Mother Jones has managed to obtain,
showing that crash fires could be largely prevented for considerably
less than $11 a car.
•
The cheapest method involves placing a heavy rubber bladder inside
the gas tank to keep the fuel from spilling if the tank ruptures
•
On December 2, 1970 (two years before Echold sent his costbenefit memo to Washington), Ford Motor Company ran a rear-end
crash test on a car with the rubber bladder in the gas tank. The tank
ruptured, but no fuel leaked.
•
On January 15, 1971, Ford again tested the bladder and again it
worked. The total purchase and installation cost of the bladder would
have been $5.08 per car.
45
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Ford's Cost/Benefit Analysis at
$5.08 Per Fuel Tank Replacement
REFERENCE :
Mark Dowie, Pinto Madness, Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 1977, at 20.
46
ETHICAL ISSUES
• Evidence indicated that cost of making
improvements to gas tank could have been
as low as $5.08 per vehicle.
• If the costs were around $5.08 per vehicle,
the Ford motor company would not have
had as strong a risk/benefit argument as
with the $11 figure provided.
47
ETHICAL ISSUES
• Ford made decision not to make improvements to the
gas tank after completion of the risk/benefit analysis.
• Ford did not make adjustments to the Pinto design
because the $11 cost was too high
• Ford did not consider the lives which would be saved if
the adjustment was made.
48
ETHICAL ISSUES
• Ford set “limits for 2000” for Pinto.
• The car was not to exceed $2000 in cost and 2000
pounds in weight.
• After crash testing, it was revealed that fuel tank burst
at 31 mph collision (internal design issue)
• Ford must have considered internal design issues,
“limits for 2000” cost the lives of people.
49
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS VS ETHICS
• The company chose not to implement the
design, which would have cost $11 per car
(according to Ford) even though it had done
an analysis showing that the new design
would result in 180 less deaths.
• The company defended itself by saying that
it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to
determine if the monetary costs of making
the change were greater than the societal
benefit.
50
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS VS ETHICS
Some things just can't be measured in terms of dollars, and that
includes human life.
• Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have
been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag
put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and
thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design
change.
• It is unethical to determine that people should be
allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would
cost too much to prevent it .
51
NHTSA STANDARD
• The "benefit side" of the equation contains the most
controversial number of the analysis--the value of a
human life.
• The number quantifying the price of a value life
($200,000) is what makes this problem so difficult. It
is hard to decide what a life is worth, but most people
feel the value of theirs is greater than $200,000.
While this $200,000 figure was the most controversial
of the equation, it was not determined by Ford.
• In 1972, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) provided the auto industry
with the number $200,725 as the value to be utilized
in risk/ benefit analysis.
52
53
RESPONSIBILITY OF FORD EMPLOYEES
• Were the employees morally responsible to refuse
to produce a car they knew would hurt the
customer?
• Should they have put more effort into convincing
Iacocca that this car was unsafe?
• Should they follow Iacocca’s commands regardless
of their opinions since he is their superior in the
company?
54
MORE ETHICAL QUESTIONS
 Should Ford have trained his managers and
presidents in safety?
 Does Ford have a responsibility to design a culture
that encourages employees to bring up safety
defects?
 Does Ford need to have a new policy that puts the
has safety of their products more important than
maximizing profits?
 Does Ford have a moral responsibility to do what is
best for his shareholders?
55
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
1. Pay the $11 per vehicle
2. Explore different safety features
3. Restart the project from the planning process
4. Continue with production of the Pinto
56
EXPLORING OTHER SAFETY MEASURES
• A cheaper alternative could be formed.
• Profit margin could be higher than first alternative.
• Repairs the safety defect before launch of product.
• Design can be more focused on safety.
• New design -> more safe -> Improve Ford’s reputation.
57
FORD PINTO CASE: VIDEO
58
59
Teleological Ethics: Morality is
determined by the consequences of actions
Morality is a means to an end: to know what we
ought to do, we must first know what is valuable
Hedonism:
value (good) is pleasure/happiness
 Egoism: my happiness is the greatest good
 Utilitarianism: the good is the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number
of people (or perhaps sentient beings)
Consequentialist Ethical Theories
Egoism:
the good is whatever promotes
my long-term interests
Epicurus
341-270 BC
Hedonism: the good is pleasure
Pursue pleasures not mixed with pain (beauty,
prudence, honor, justice, courage, knowledge);
satisfy natural desires (food, sleep), avoid vain
desires (fame, fashion)
Self-realization:
develop harmoniously all
our capacities (Plato, Aristotle, Bradley)
Objections to Egoism
Egoism
cannot resolve conflicts of interest
(which moral theories should do)
Egoism allows for no “moral point of view” of
an ideal observer who is impartial, informed,
and imaginatively identifies with those in the
situation
Egoist
response: no one is completely impartial,
nor should moral decisions be dispassionate