The Right to an Unsafe Car? : Consumer Choice and Three Types of Autonomy

Abstract

The Ford Pinto’s fuel tank was prone to rupture in collisions above 20 mph, sometimes resulting in burn deaths. An infamous Ford memo estimated the cost of a shield correcting the problem at $11. Should Ford have installed the shield, holding public safety paramount, or, respecting consumer autonomy, have made the shield an option? Answering this question requires distinguishing between three kinds of autonomy: merechoice autonomy (deciding something for oneself, regardless of the content of the choice), proclamative autonomy (making a choice that holds up a value or standard, commitment to which is partly definitive of who one is), and high-impact autonomy (making a choice that profoundly affects one’s ability to make proclamative choices). (This is not a formal distinction, that is, a distinction meant be to be clear, rigorous, and neutral). Autonomy is thus asymmetric: choosing to do x may be highly proclamative while choosing not to do x is not. In the Pinto case, not giving consumers the option of declining the shield undercuts only mere-choice autonomy. Several arguments are provided (including an argument based on the nature of moral agency) that proclamative autonomy (and, derivatively, high-impact autonomy), rather than mere-choice autonomy, has significant positive value. More precisely, it is argued that, as a rule, the more proclamative a choice is, other things being equal, the more weight autonomy claims about that choice possess. The paper concludes that common sense is correct about the Pinto case. In some instances, consumer choice may legitimately count more than the engineer’s commitment to public safety (particularly when proclamative choice is involved). However, losing the opportunity to save $11 is not too large a price to pay in order to counter market pressures against safety by inducing in engineers a professional commitment to put safety first.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,391

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Autonomy, Character, and Self-Understanding.Paul Katsafanas - 2016 - In Iskra Fileva (ed.), Questions of Character. Oxford University Press.
Consumer Autonomy and Availability of Genetically Modified Food.Helena Siipi & Susanne Uusitalo - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2):147-163.
Multicultural Education as Fostering Individual Autonomy.Michele S. Moses - 1997 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 16 (4):373-388.
Consumer autonomy and sufficiency of gmf labeling.Helena Siipi & Susanne Uusitalo - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (4):353-369.
Autonomy, Consent and the Law.Sheila McLean - 2009 - Routledge-Cavendish.
The Evolution of Autonomy.Trevor Stammers - 2015 - The New Bioethics 21 (2):155-163.
Shared decision-making and patient autonomy.Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Intention, autonomy, and brain events.Grant Gillett - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (6):330-339.
The Heteronomy of Choice Architecture.Chris Mills - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3):495-509.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-23

Downloads
6 (#1,105,256)

6 months
1 (#451,971)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Eugene Schlossberger
Purdue University Calumet

Citations of this work

Engineering Codes of Ethics and the Duty to Set a Moral Precedent.Eugene Schlossberger - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (5):1333-1344.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Engineers Who Kill: Professional Ethics and the Paramountcy of Public Safety.Kenneth Kipnis - 1981 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1 (1):77-91.
Engineers Who Kill: Professional Ethics and the Paramountcy of Public Safety.Kenneth Kipnis - 1981 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1 (1):77-91.

Add more references