The Price of Damned Lies

So, I was back in Business Ethics today. Guilt trip. First of all, Mr. Bearded Democratic Philosopher with a First Name That Sounds Like a Last Name (Harrison), not to be confused with "Mr. Harrison," is pretty nice (he said goodbye to me today), and good-looking as well I might add (he smiled too). Second of all, the slides that I stole, as it turns out, aren't accessible to even his students. Third, Immanuel Kant, who I supposedly like so much, would be of the opinion that stealing bread even if you are starving is still (and not any less) wrong. Setting aside my own petty theft for one moment, let's focus on the real issue. I can't like Kant AND Les Miserables?! Yes, that fact alone is truly the full extent of my guilt.

Now, on to the damned lies. You see, I'm reading this book called More Damned Lies and Statistics for my stats class. And it just so happens that my assignment due Friday ties into my little gripe against business, and my little horrah-horray for philosophy. I chose this situation that I heard about just a couple days ago as an example of what the author refers to as "missing numbers" in statistical estimations. And it involves this car:

The Ford Pinto. Now forgive me if you've heard about it before. Anyway, the story here is that back in the 70s the Ford company wanted to compete with other car manufacturers from Japan and the like, and so they made a goal that the Pinto must not be "an ounce over 2,000 lb., and not a penny over $2,000." They reached this goal, but unfortunately there was a major safety flaw in the design. The fuel tank was located behind the rear axel, which upon just over a 30 mph hit to the back of the car would cause some serious gas leakage, prone to burst the car into flames at the first spark. With rear blows of even greater forces, the doors would crush shut, and it would almost certainly lead to burn fatalities for crash victims.

Two things could have corrected the problem. One, the tank could have been put above the rear axel. Although they knew this was much safer, the reason they didn't do it was because it would drastically decrease trunk space. Apparently, trunk space was an important marketable feature. The second thing that could have been done (even after production) would have been to add a fire-prevention device in the gas tank that would cost an extra $11/vehicle. What to do?

Well, using the cost-benefit analysis they determined that the benefit of installing the device amounted to 49.5 million dollars. The cost of installing the device for each car would be 137 million dollars. So, from there the choice was obvious. But then again, how did they calculate the benefit. Did they seriously have the audacity to put a price on a human life? Well, so it would seem. And that price per individual was in the ball park of only $200,000. That's not to say that's really what they thought a life was worth, per say. The amount was calculated in reference to how much money they expected to be sued for, as well as the amount of money that the deceased victims would have earned throughout the rest of their lifetime.

At first our repulsion may be over the fact that the estimate per individual is only $200,000. But if you consider that only real dollars and cents values were considered here, we might let that go. But then an even grimmer repulsion settles in with the fact that the value of a human life didn't come into the picture AT ALL. So much for business ethics and cost-benefit analyses.

On the flip side, the parting thought of Business Ethics today was how fanatical Kant really was in defending his ethics. So much that perhaps even lying to spare a person's life is unacceptable. I find that ridiculous. Just a heavy price for another sort of damned lie.