[10:34 p.m., 2021-10-10] Muskaan Roomie: Suppose that you are the CEO of a company that is about to market an affordable, low-emissions car. Mass production of this car could potentially lead to the following benefits:

A very significant reduction in worldwide carbon emissions from cars

A very significant increase in the stock value and profitability of your company

Gainful employment for tens of thousands of people manufacturing this car for your company

Your engineers have informed you that the fuel tank is placed in such a way that in certain very particular kinds of crashes, the car will instantly explode, in which case all the occupants will die a painful and fiery death. However, data shows that these kinds of crashes are likely to be fairly rare. (Note: your engineers have determined that you cant change the placement of the fuel tank without completely negating the low-emission and low-cost features of the car.)

Okay, that's the background. Here's the scenario. You, as CEO of the company, have to give a press conference about the car. During the press conference a reporter asks you about the safety of the car, and whether the design might pose a risk to consumers. Here are the thwo things you can do in this situation:

Option 1: Tell the truth, and inform the reporter that the car will almost certainly catch fire in certain kinds of crashes. In these cases the occupants will die a painful and fiery death, but the odds of such a crash happening are low.

Option 2: Lie, and say that you have no evidence that there is anything unsafe about the design of the car.

Question: Which of two options would a utilitarian think is the morally right thing to do? (1 point) Why? (5 points, explain why. If you choose Option 3, describe what this something else is, and explain why you chose it.)