John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Henry Ford and Jeremy Bentham. To start off, explaining the ethical issues in the production of the new metal 3-D printer to these four philosophers and intellectuals would not be quite easy but I would do the following. Id first start off by explaining the ethical issues that can arise if this machinery were to be released to the public such as printing guns, explosives, another person’s license plates and many more unpractical uses. Along with the cons, id also explain how this new version of 3-D printing can be used for practical uses such as printing medical and scientific devices that can cost a fortune at market prices. In other words, id create a moral balance sheet such that weighs both the costs and benefits (pleasures and pains) in releasing this product to the public versus releasing it only to companies that will make practical use of it. The moral balance sheet analyzes both the pros and cons of releasing the Metal 3-D printer to the public and how some “pleasures” can outweigh “pains” such as printing medical and scientific devices. In relation to the moral balance sheet, id also explain the importance of moral autonomy in releasing this product. Before releasing it, it is important for one to realize the difference between one’s views of what’s right versus societies’. The moral autonomies’ along with the moral balance sheet is how id explain the ethical issues that can possibly arise in releasing the metal 3-D printer to the public. The purpose of this new 3-D printer is to benefit those who will use it for practical uses such as the one listed above. Based off the “Pinto” case, it is important to have a mutual relationship between the company and the consumer. Henry Ford will respond by explaining how it is important for one to explain the technicalities and specifications of such machinery if it were to be released. By doing so, I think Henry Ford will support 3-D printers by suggesting a list of the technical specifications along with a list of all things possible the machine can perform. Before id explain the moral balance sheet, John Stuart Mill will respond by saying that one should have the ability to do what one wishes, in other words his “No harm principle.” John Stuart Mill, in my opinion, would take a positive stance on the 3-D printers as long as they cause no harm to the public. In other words, his “No harm principle” would support his point by suggesting that the 3-D printer be used for beneficial purposes only, such as creating medical devices. While John Stuart Mill would think that 3-D printers were created for logical and constructive purposes, Aristotle would impose the idea that 3-D printers have the potential to do both good and harm if used for the wrong purposes.  Aristotle will respond by justifying the importance of “learning by doing.” In doing so, Aristotle is implying the notion that 3-D printers have the potential to do good but in doing so, one can also have dishonest and malicious motives. For example, 3-D metal printers have the potential to create weapons such as guns and bullets, which can then be used to kill. In this case, 3-D printers serve as both beneficial and virulent. Jeremy Bentham would manifest his idea of “utilitarianism” and the possibility of hedonism arising if the machinery were to be released. Returning back to the notion of “pleasure vs pain”, Bentham would agree that this machinery would serve as both a pleasure and pain to society. Similar to Aristotle’s views, Bentham would stand his ground by imposing the notion that 3-D printers have the capabilities to cause “pleasure” and “pain”. Pleasure in the sense that this device can be used to create goods at a low price and pain in the sense that, if used in the wrong hands, the device can produce malevolent appliances. All four philosophers would impose the general idea of improving any product by learning from its failures.