What would you do? Harvard Justice class..

[Senna4ever]

Episode Two which deals with Ford's decision to not recall the Pinto even though they knew that an $11 part would save lives in an accident is very interesting.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

[Mercy]

Ethics man some people live by em. Some people don't. I personally do so lives mean more to me and knowing I did the right thing are more important to me then money.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Senna4ever]

Obviously you didn't watch the series. Your own personal ethics may be different from those of someone else, and who are you to say that yours is 'right'? I found the series very thought provoking.

[Ronin]

I would do the recall but not because it would save lives or because it's the right thing to do.

Mainly because the $11 part on each Pinto would be cheaper than the subsequent negative press that would cause lower stock share prices and overall revenue. No one is going to buy cars that kill people.

Wikipedia says that 100k Pintos were sold in the first year and about 70k in the last. Over 10 years, let's assume that 850,000 Pintos were sold. That means the recall would cost $9.35m in parts alone so let's say double that for the cost of the recall. $20m in 1975 is about what $80m is today.

Ford concluded that paying off the resulting lawsuits from deaths was cheaper than this but I don't think they fully understood how bad it would get for them in the press. I also don't think they really did the math on the lawsuits either because one of them cost them $6m by itself. In the end, I think Ford LOST money by not doing the recall.

I'm no expert in stock market history so I don't know how the F stock was affected by the Pinto but think of it TODAY. If Ford said fuck off to a $40 part that would save lives, do you think people would buy Fords anymore? No...it's just bad for business to have people die in your cars so I would do that repair.

If it was a $1000 part? Well, firstly, that car should've probably never been made with such a huge design flaw but then it would be a more difficult choice. A $1b recall would kill a company but a few cars killing people might not.

[BNR32_Coupe]

this guy makes money by hosting seminars and giving people a chance to voice their opinion. for most of these questions, there is no generally accepted right answer. people buy into this seminar to feel like they gave a piece of their mind to harvard university.

Originally Posted by Mercy

Ethics man some people live by em. Some people don't. I personally do so lives mean more to me and knowing I did the right thing are more important to me then money.
Posted via RS Mobile

ethics is a highly subjective term. i think most people uphold their decisions as ethical, in their definition.

[Ronin]

I love classes like this...I took a lot of them in university about ethics and human behavior. Mostly because I like arguing with uppity hippy bitches (my classes were almost always 80-90% women) that think the moral thing to do is always the correct thing to do.

In the end, what I would do in almost ALL of these theoretical situations is whatever would benefit me, my friends and my family because when it's all said and done, it's ME FIRST.

Would I steal things that my child needed? Hells yes, I'd steal like crazy if my kid needed medicine or something I couldn't afford.

Would I torture a prisoner? Fuck yes, if that guy threatened me or my family.

Would I kill another human being? Again, if he threatened me or my family, fuck yes...I'd kill him right in his face.

Would I cheat my taxes if I knew I wouldn't get caught? OF COURSE...more money for me.

Anyone that answers with "Oh, no...stealing/killing/cheating is wrong." is just being silly. If they were really faced with that dilemma, they'd choose themselves every time.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

ethics is a highly subjective term. i think most people uphold their decisions as ethical, in their definition.

You're responding to someone that clearly didn't watch the video.

...or if he did and is trying to debate his point on some sort of intellectual level...well, then that's sort of worse.

[Culture_Vulture]

For those of you unfamiliar, Sandel is a great instructor. As somebody who chose a major in political science, I might even argue he's one of the greatest thinkers of our times.

His peer, Steven Smith from Yale, does something similar, posting his Yale lectures online, completely accessible to the public.

Here is one course by Smith that I've watched from beginning to end, an intro level course on society and the individual, pertaining largely to moral and ethics:
http://oyc.yale.edu/political-scienc...lass-sessions/
As you might imagine, Smith addresses many of the same issues Sandel asked in the short 4-minute clip. Nothing out of the ordinary, I suppose, but considering it's completely free, I'd advise any political philosophy/political science or law students to check it out.

[bcedhk]

he reminds me of "Ben" from Lost. lol

but great videos, thanks for the link

[chun]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I love classes like this...I took a lot of them in university about ethics and human behavior. Mostly because I like arguing with uppity hippy bitches (my classes were almost always 80-90% women) that think the moral thing to do is always the correct thing to do.

In the end, what I would do in almost ALL of these theoretical situations is whatever would benefit me, my friends and my family because when it's all said and done, it's ME FIRST.

Would I steal things that my child needed? Hells yes, I'd steal like crazy if my kid needed medicine or something I couldn't afford.

Would I torture a prisoner? Fuck yes, if that guy threatened me or my family.

Would I kill another human being? Again, if he threatened me or my family, fuck yes...I'd kill him right in his face.

Would I cheat my taxes if I knew I wouldn't get caught? OF COURSE...more money for me.

Anyone that answers with "Oh, no...stealing/killing/cheating is wrong." is just being silly. If they were really faced with that dilemma, they'd choose themselves every time.

Thank you for answering for everyone. Would only make sense that a great mass would answer for the greater masses.

/thread, the Ronin has spoken.

[BlacknJean]

funny how toyota gets more flack than ford. oh yea its not american! thats why!

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I would do the recall but not because it would save lives or because it's the right thing to do.

Mainly because the $11 part on each Pinto would be cheaper than the subsequent negative press that would cause lower stock share prices and overall revenue. No one is going to buy cars that kill people.

Wikipedia says that 100k Pintos were sold in the first year and about 70k in the last. Over 10 years, let's assume that 850,000 Pintos were sold. That means the recall would cost $9.35m in parts alone so let's say double that for the cost of the recall. $20m in 1975 is about what $80m is today.

Ford concluded that paying off the resulting lawsuits from deaths was cheaper than this but I don't think they fully understood how bad it would get for them in the press. I also don't think they really did the math on the lawsuits either because one of them cost them $6m by itself. In the end, I think Ford LOST money by not doing the recall.

I'm no expert in stock market history so I don't know how the F stock was affected by the Pinto but think of it TODAY. If Ford said fuck off to a $40 part that would save lives, do you think people would buy Fords anymore? No...it's just bad for business to have people die in your cars so I would do that repair.

If it was a $1000 part? Well, firstly, that car should've probably never been made with such a huge design flaw but then it would be a more difficult choice. A $1b recall would kill a company but a few cars killing people might not.

I was told the same thing, they hired a bunch of smart people and it was cheaper not to recall the cars and take on the lawsuits. I have no heard the bad press and stock market drop argument before, hadn't thought about it, and it's a very valid point for sure.

But think of it this way, did Ford really get "set back"' from the Pinto? Fuck, they entered their glory days until a few years ago, I think.

It would be interesting to see if there was an in depth study done about the Pinto debacle and a yes or no answer as to whether it was a, economically, good decision. Like I said, the quick answer would be yes as they stuck around and kept making profits, but i would be very interested in the results.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by chun

Thank you for answering for everyone. Would only make sense that a great mass would answer for the greater masses.

/thread, the Ronin has spoken.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by GabAlmighty

I was told the same thing, they hired a bunch of smart people and it was cheaper not to recall the cars and take on the lawsuits. I have no heard the bad press and stock market drop argument before, hadn't thought about it, and it's a very valid point for sure.

But think of it this way, did Ford really get "set back"' from the Pinto? Fuck, they entered their glory days until a few years ago, I think.

It would be interesting to see if there was an in depth study done about the Pinto debacle and a yes or no answer as to whether it was a, economically, good decision. Like I said, the quick answer would be yes as they stuck around and kept making profits, but i would be very interested in the results.

The effects are definitely short term for a big company with a long history (a long American history) like Ford. It's a setback but not a big one. However, thinking short term, they probably still lost money by not doing the recall.

[PiuYi]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Would I steal things that my child needed? Hells yes, I'd steal like crazy if my kid needed medicine or something I couldn't afford.

Would I torture a prisoner? Fuck yes, if that guy threatened me or my family.

Would I kill another human being? Again, if he threatened me or my family, fuck yes...I'd kill him right in his face.

Would I cheat my taxes if I knew I wouldn't get caught? OF COURSE...more money for me.

Anyone that answers with "Oh, no...stealing/killing/cheating is wrong." is just being silly. If they were really faced with that dilemma, they'd choose themselves every time.

i think what makes these questions hard is not because they ask "would you do it" its cuz they ask "is it right to do it".... to which there's really no definite answer to any of the questions

I like these types of thinking classes, but how they grade classes to which theres no right answer always makes me reluctant to take the course
you never kno where you lose marks and how to improve on the next essay

[goo3]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I would do the recall but not because it would save lives or because it's the right thing to do.

Mainly because the $11 part on each Pinto would be cheaper than the subsequent negative press that would cause lower stock share prices and overall revenue. No one is going to buy cars that kill people.

I took Philosophy one time and thought it was absolutely the dumbest class asking the most useless questions in the entire history of world. I thought everybody who were intrigued by that shit was a fuckin idiot

You do the recall and nobody dies, then nobody gets hurt. Whatever reason you based your decision on doesn't matter in the end.

You don't do the recall and ppl die. It's in society's interest where if it can be proven that the consequences were known and the decision was made because of economics instead safety, then you should be going to jail for murder. Only you had the knowledge and power to make the decision that either leads to or prevents potential injury. Argue any scenario/ethical dilemma/excuse you'd like, it should be the law that acts as the final backstop to keep you honest if your internal rationalization needs to go that far.

Not only that, say you have a close call but no one died: if it can be shown you knew or had enough signs to know, you should be fined heavily and/or run the fuck out of business.

Imagine a world where we're all sitting under a tree asking useless questions and over thinking with these moral or political frameworks instead of dealing with reality: what type of water would we be drinking, what type of planes would we be flying in, what type of bridges would we be driving over, what type of politicians would.. wait wut?

Zip. Flame is suit on. Merry X-Mas y'all.

[Grandmaster TSE]

classes like these are awesome, because there isn't really a definite answer

but i agree with ronin
it would be easier to deal with the news of recalling all pintos just because it seems like the company cares instead of the negative publicity of having deaths because of something that can be solved by a $10 part

its also fun to listen to everybody's answers because you put a part of your major into it too. i look at it a marketing perspective on top of an ethical and logical perspective

[Culture_Vulture]

Originally Posted by goo3

I took Philosophy one time and thought it was absolutely the dumbest class asking the most useless questions in the entire history of world. I thought everybody who were intrigued by that shit was a fuckin idiot

You do the recall and nobody dies, then nobody gets hurt. Whatever reason you based your decision on doesn't matter in the end.

You don't do the recall and ppl die. It's in society's interest where if it can be proven that the consequences were known and the decision was made because of economics instead safety, then you should be going to jail for murder. Only you had the knowledge and power to make the decision that either leads to or prevents potential injury. Argue any scenario/ethical dilemma/excuse you'd like, it should be the law that acts as the final backstop to keep you honest if your internal rationalization needs to go that far.

Not only that, say you have a close call but no one died: if it can be shown you knew or had enough signs to know, you should be fined heavily and/or run the fuck out of business.

Imagine a world where we're all sitting under a tree asking useless questions and over thinking with these moral or political frameworks instead of dealing with reality: what type of water would we be drinking, what type of planes would we be flying in, what type of bridges would we be driving over, what type of politicians would.. wait wut?

Zip. Flame is suit on. Merry X-Mas y'all.

To each his own.
Science students think students of all other faculties are fucking idiots. A little too close-minded, if you ask me. There have been social science fields which have been heavily integrated with the hard sciences, for example, linguistics or psychology.
Yet scientists continue to prefer dwelling on undeveloped science fiction over preexisting social sciences, as to show how original they are and how much other academic fields try to emulate "scientific expertise". Also pretty stupid, if you ask me. I've never quite understood why I had to write my Philosophy papers in standard academic (that is, objective) form.

Plus, at the same time, you can't argue that ethics courses are REALLY, EASY, marks. My first and only A+ in my university career was in an ethics class