A utilitarian approach might argue that Liang believed that using this software could lead to the greatest overall happiness because customers would believe they were more fuel efficient and felt better about themselves and production should not be delayed nor costs increased. This argument would agree that using the defeat device is ethical if Liang followed the rule that it should produce the greatest overall happiness. However, when applying Kant's theory to the use of the defeat device, Laing's must be established as a categorical imperative. Having been an engineer for many years, Liang must comply with the NSPE. The NSPE states: “Engineers must acknowledge their mistakes and must not distort or alter the facts.”2 This statement can be used as a categorical imperative because it is a universal rule that all engineers have a professional obligation to adhere to. Liang's willingness for his actions is described in a Bloomberg Technology article which states: "I understand that VW has not disclosed the defeat plan to U.S. regulators to sell the cars in the United States."3 Since Liang is a chief engineer of Volkswagen, it can be said that his intentions were to sell the cars in the United States as well. One may wonder whether this will follow the categorical imperative. In this situation this is not the case. The use of the defeat device clearly breaks the code in the NSPE because it distorts the code