I found our latest reading assignment, "Pinto Madness", a very interesting article. While I have heard the story of the infamous Ford Pinto's design flaw a few times before (mostly through second hand recounting), I appreciated the opportunity to read such a comprehensive and research-driven article. At the same time, however, I found myself discouraged by the aggressive and accusatory tone of the writing. I understand that this piece of work was intended to open the public's eyes to the priorities of the auto industry in America and their influence in our government, but I felt that the author's personal outrage towards the Ford Motor Company reduce the effectiveness of his arguments.
An example of this is his continual focus on the fact that Ford puts dollar value on a human life. I can count at least three places in the text where this is quoted directly, and many more where it is indirectly referenced. Economic analysis requires putting a value on a human life from the analyst's frame of reference. It is not (and could never be) a true indication of the actual value of an individual's life, but is is a necessary crude approximation that makes it possible to quantify the idea of safety. While many might understandably make a case that no value is high enough to equal human life, mathematics and the habits of society to not support this. If we picture "safety" as the output of a function asymptotically approaching 100% as a function of dollars, it quickly becomes impractical to keep investing huge sums of money for a tiny marginal benefit in safety. I argue this not to defend Ford (or claim that they had reached the point of diminishing returns), which is clearly responsible for a great deal. Instead, I want to make the case that the author is trying to use this fact to appeal to readers's emotional sensibilities and inspire anger rather than a rational response. Another way in which the author tries to inspire outrage in readers is through his follow up on the activities of senior management officials at Ford. A strong argument with solid facts, like this article, doesn't need to try to inspire resentment towards those responsible, that will happen on its own. Resorting to an examination of Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca's futures after Ford seems petty and off topic when the focus should be kept to an examination of the circumstances that allowed these accidents to happen.
I agree with your analysis Kyle. I think that being emotional does detract from the real issue, but I don't think the writer's intent is to be rational, but rather to try enact social change. The company did not allow, or made it very hard for the public to make an informed decision about buying the product. If they did, maybe the outcome of the final product would have came out differently. Although the writer might have been trying to draw an emotional response, it seems effective in at least bringing light to the issue and possibly pushing consumers to make demand more information from companies to make intelligent decisions. It's hard enough as it is to try to sway public opinion, and by not being so "matter of fact" about the issue the reader might become a better decision maker in the future. I'm not saying that the facts don't matter, but sometimes in order for them to get across they might need to make people care first.
ReplyDelete