Liang in fact acted accordingly from a point of view that gives maximum happiness to society. He and his colleagues devised a plan in which they masked the inherent flaws of Volkswagen's diesel engine implementation. For the greater good of the mechanized world it can be argued that this decision was a clear solution; regardless of the ties of the company. The writer's point of view is that many like to discuss human progress and ecological damage, but no one wants to give up progress for the greater good. In any case, rule utilitarianism is somewhat objective. This means that perhaps Mr. Liang acted according to his concept of rule, which perhaps was implied to him by superiors, and perhaps was not. This could imply that, as a 30-year veteran of the field, he has succumbed to the error on the side of supererogatory goals. Nonetheless, it is clear that rule utilitarianism leans in the direction that perhaps Mr. Liang did what was asked of him. It should be clear to the reader that Mr. Liang's approach to the problem was truly a means to an end and not a means in and of itself. This obviously violates Kant's concept of dignity and autonomy. However, from the point of view of rule utilitarianism, perhaps he reacted as he should have for the greater good of the industry