It would begin by saying that since Liang's intentions were to benefit himself and his company, he did not act according to his good will and did not act according to his duty to respect the moral law. If everyone in the world did what Liang did, lied and acted selfishly, then the world would cease to exist because no one would trust each other and nothing would ever get accomplished, improved or function as it should. Utilitarian views would see Liang's actions as morally right since the consequences of his actions provided more pleasure than pain to himself and the company he represents. When confronted about the problems and Liang lied to the government, he did so to avoid further panic and consequences for himself, while making the company look better. If he had told the truth right away, which is what Kant believes is always the right choice, he probably would have been fired immediately and sent to prison for fraudulently tampering with government data and breaking the law. Even if these things ended up happening to him, utilitarians would say that since the consequences of lying and creating a device that tampered with the true results of a test made him and the company look better than they would have if the results had shown the truth. truth, the pleasure was more than the pain and therefore it was a morally right decision. One might even say