'Kay, I'd like to bring up the example of the infamous Ford
Pinto scandal. Essential excerpt:
Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.
Ford was allegedly aware of this design flaw but refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits. The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. Ford lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."
Now, you could argue that Ford was busted and paid for its wrongdoing. But, first of all, ask yourself, where is Ford today? And second, consider the possibility that no one ever discovered this; consider the possibility that, today, there are still things that have yet to be discovered.
I can't tie this grievance to any point more specific than, "under capitalism, only money matters" (specific offshoots of which are human rights and environmental issues). To be honest, I shouldn't have to be more specific than that, but some people obviously don't understand that
some things are more important than money, or at least have no equivalent monetary value.
Also, I'd like to clear something up. When I was talking about most people not being perfect moral authorities, what I meant was this: it's much easier to decide what proper morals are, than it is to actually act upon them. Acceptance does not guarantee compliance. This, I venture, is especially true when a violation against one, their loss, is equivalent to the complying violator-accessory's gain. One's gain for another's loss... isn't that a bit of what greed is about?
