During the last 6 months Toyota has recalled more than 9 million of their cars for reparation. There appear to be problems with the seat belts and accelerator. These problems have caused 34 deaths in the USA and many more wounded. On the 2nd of February 2010 it was announced that Toyota UK knew of accelerator failure problems a year ago. In the winter of 2008-2009 26 incidents with Toyota accelerator problems were reported. However, Toyota never published this information, because the amount of 26 accidents can statistically be seen as ‘very rare’ according to a Toyota spokesperson. Furthermore, in the spring and summer no more accidents were reported.
This case shows a problem of moral motivation (PMM). To act in accordance with the moral discourse, the best thing to do for Toyota was publishing the information available, to at least warn its customers. Furthermore, they should have researched the problem more thoroughly. They instead chose to wait to see if more accidents would happen and since that was not the case, they assumed the information could be restrained from their customers, thereby increasing the chance of fatal accidents. This is in conflict with the moral commandment: ‘do not harm others’. However, they were acting in accordance with the business discourse. If they published the information or conducted research, this would have cost a lot of money. Furthermore, they would have lost potential customers, since Toyota would then be known for their unsafe cars. Since in this case the moral and business discourse do not overlap, morality has become visible and it has become a PMM. I think Toyota definitely should have published the information, because life is always more important than money, they should have not taken the risk that accidents were only rare.
Background article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The problem in this case is in my opinion that it is a moral hard case because there are two sides on this story. In my opinion I would say that it was right of Toyota not to publish this information because this would have destroyed the company. It’s very strange if they would have published this information while looking backwards in the Spring and Summer there were zero reported accidents. Statistics showed that the accidents were rare so can we conclude that Toyota did nothing and just waited for more accidents ? And if this is the case how do other car manufactures act in these cases.
Sadly we need accidents to get to know if there are major failures in the product. In this case the problems vanished in the Spring and Summer months. And occurred in the colder months. I conclude that Toyota was not morally wrong.
I also think that this is a problem of moral motivation. Next to the fact that Toyota was aware of the right course of action, they strongly underestimated the power of social media and the speed in which their reputation was at stake due to outspoken opinions on weblogs, e.g twitter and youtube. They were mainly afraid of their reputation and the amount of costs involved with the recall. From many months back they were aware of the failure problems of the cars (26 incidents because of the accelerator) and they did not do anything about it. They even choose to wait to see if more accidents would happen. If more accidents were happened, Toyota can be held liable for endangering people’s lives. Such crucial information must always be made public. Besides the fact that this is in conflict with the moral commandment “do not harm others” it is also in conflict with the moral commandment “do not deceive others”. Customers thought they bought a safe care, which is not the case. I conclude that Toyota act morally wrong.
U1236855
I think Toyota is acting morally right.
Statistically the problem is ‘very rare’. However Toyota is taking the complaints serious by stating that there were some accidents. Consumers who don’t feel comfortable with their vehicle can go to a Toyota dealer where the car will be investigated. A spokesman for Which, the consumer group, said: ‘We believe Toyota is acting responsibly.’
From the hermeneutic perspective morality’s rational is supposed to be grounded in ‘rational
willing’. This willing can be described by two principles: respect for others and oneself and a fundamental concern for the basic need of others.
By allowing people to visit Toyota dealers Toyota demonstrates that it respects the safety of
consumers; despite the fact that the problem hasn’t been proven. Since safety is a basic need
of a person this is a relevant moral principle. Since Toyota complies with this moral principle
it is acting morally right.
U1236227
ANR: 792563
Martijn Stouthart
In my opinion Toyota did not act morally wrong. The main question in this discussion; after how many accidents you should intervene, with all risk of damaging your image. Toyota produces millions of cars each year which are all tested intensive in the development stage. As a car manufacturer you will not doubt soon after the first accidents that there is a production error.
After it became clear the cause of the accidents was a production error I think Toyota acted morally right. I also see an overlap with the moral and the business discourse. By acting morally right in this case they also act right from the discourse of business. Acting morally wrong could harm the image of Toyota. In the industry Toyota is operating image is crucial for the sales. Toyota acted right in my opinion by admitting blame and trying to solve the situation for all the other sold cars.
s888110
It is difficult for a manufacturer to trace whether production mistakes are found in the entire batch of manufactured cars, or that these merely occurred because of divergent deficiencies in just some of the produced cars. In the previous case a large part of produced cars would bare production mistakes; in the latter case merely a few percent of total output would carry deficiencies.
I can understand that Toyota did not want to publish damaging information since future accidents were highly unlikely. But since it is difficult to investigate what percentage of cars eventually is dangerous for consumers to drive, the company should have acted much earlier. Toyota should have published the necessary information, while at the same time ensuring customer service to lower company damage. An example could be to tell customers that their cars bare dangerous deficiencies, while at the same time offering a repair service/car replacement.
Remy Schoenzetter (ANR 887823)
According to the book in this modern society, society is differenciated. And in differentiated society morality also differentiate. Business ethics as a special branch of morality could only develop as a consequesce of societal differentiation.
I think that with economic or legal discourses Toyota did nothing wrong, because Toyota did nothing wrong in legal aspect. And with economic discourse they also consider long-term profit so they waited(short-term profit) and they reacted just when it got serious. However, I think Toyota did morally wrong and I cannot consider other discourses because of differenciation. Moral discourse is prior to every other discourse. Morality is commandment, it is an order. In this view I agree what Markvangils87 said this is about safty of people, and it's related to moral commandment “do not harm others” and “do not deceive others”. Therefore this is why I cannot consider any other discourse except moral discourse. Toyota did immoral.
I think Toyota acted immoral. From the business discourse, Toyota is a car-producer which has self-interests to maximize profit. However, they also are strong responsible of the safety of their cars that they produce. Toyota is morally wrong since they violate the responsibility and sold the defect car to their customers. In mind that they knew of the accelerator problems in the winter of 2008-2009. The wrong action was waiting for more accidents, instead of fixing their problem. According to this issue, Toyota should inform the customers immediately and publish the information.
A second reason for me to argue that Toyota acted immoral is that they broke the customer’s trust which is a fundamental moral value that makes the constitution of the market possible. On a strict moral standpoint, they have a moral obligation to alert their customers of the potential danger.
Post a Comment