Journal # 3 04/14/2014

PHIL 323 Engineering Ethics Sec 001

GMs Faulty Ignition Switch
Earlier this year, General Motors (GM) issued a recall on around six million vehicles due
to numerous problems regarding the safety of their vehicles. One issue in particular GM had
knowledge about dating all the way back to 2001. A certain model of their ignition switch had a
poor mechanical design which allowed the ignition to be switched from run to accessory if
the key ring was too heavy. This is problematic as when switched to accessory, the engine
was killed which in turn disabled power steering and disable the airbags. At least a dozen people
died from this faulty ignition switch, yet until now, all GM did was issue a service advisory back
in 2005 (Stephan). GM did a poor job of preventing the situation as well as remedying it, and
their actions, or lack thereof, were ethically wrong.
A simple way to evaluate ethical actions is to look at the spectrum of judgements, which
measures actions on a scale from wrongdoing to supererogatory. Actions towards the
wrongdoing side are ones in which the acting party is clearly irresponsible. When we move
towards supererogatory, the acting party went above and beyond the call of duty. In the middle
is rightdoing, which is an ordinary/competent action. In the case of GM, their actions clearly
were towards the wrongdoing side. In the design phase, like many design processes, they had to
compromise on the switch. They had to find a balance between either providing too much
resistance, making the switch hard to turn or too little resistance, which made it possible that a
heavy key ring could switch the switch (Stephan). Compromising on the switch was not
ethically wrong, but would be considered near rightdoing on the spectrum of judgements as it is
something that is done very often in engineering design. After all, you have to be able to balance
the design and costs. However, GMs lack of action when alerted to the faulty switch is at
wrongdoing on the spectrum of judgements and how they acted was ethically wrong.
When analyzing this particular case using the Respect for Persons approach, it is clear to
see that GMs actions were ethically wrong. The basic idea behind the Respect for Persons
ethical theory is that the ends do not justify the means. Each person is extremely valuable, and
this fact makes some means just plain wrong, even if it brings about a greater good for many
other persons (Harris et al. 44). In the case of GM, they violated the respect for persons
approach when they did not recall the affected cars after it had been reported that they switch
was the cause of several peoples deaths. They put the value of the greater good of their
company before the value of individual peoples lives. Recalling a large amount of cars is going
to cost the company a large amount of money, and at the time GM was teetering on the brink of
bankruptcy, but waiting longer to implement a recall cost GM even more money and worse,
many more lives (Stephan). If they had followed the respect for persons approach, they would
have recalled the car after the first death due to this faulty switch was known so that they would
prevent others from suffering the same fate.
There are three forms of the respect for persons approach. Two of them can be looked at
to determine that GM was ethically wrong. The first is the golden rule form, which states that
you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Harris et al. 44). If the GM
engineers had put themselves in the place of someone affected by this faulty switch it would
seem clear that they would want to be let known that there was a problem and have the vehicle
recalled to prevent fatalities. GM, well aware of the problem, did no such thing until recently,
over ten years later. That directly violates the golden rule form of the respect for persons
approach and makes their actions unethical. The second form that GM violated would be the
rights approach. This approach simply states that others need to be given the rights necessary to
exercise their moral agency and pursue their well-being (Harris et al. 47). In this case, GM
violated both the victims positive right to live as well as their negative right to not die due an
ignition switch failure.
In conclusion, GM judged the value of their company to be more than the value of
peoples lives. Using the ethical theory of respect for persons and its three forms, we can see
that by not issuing a recall, their actions were insufficient and ethically wrong.
Works Cited

Stephan, Karl. The GM Ignition Switch Recall: Too Little Too Late? Engineering Ethics
Blog: Comments on Current Events with an Engineering Ethics Angle. 07 Apr. 2014.
Web. 12 Apr. 2014. <http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-gm-ignition-
switch-recall-too.html>

Harris, Charles, et al. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Boston: Wadsworth, 2013.
Print.