ETHICS IN BUSINESS QUIZ #2, FINAL EXAM

Consequentialism was the main theory of normative ethics until when?

The 50's, when a lot of people switched to deontology.

Labor Markets:

The availability of employment and labor, in terms of supply and demand.

Environmentalism:

The company that pollutes should be required to compensate the larger society by paying for the pollution it produces so as to offset the harm it does

Philips talks about virtue ethics:

Theory of normative ethics; doesn't give us any concrete guidance of what to do in a situation; it just tells you to be a wise/honest business person.

HOMEWORK QUESTION: When do Gardner, Stansbury, and Hart think "poaching" employees is ethically impermissible?"

They think it is ethically impermissible when there is an symmetrical ideological loyalty AND/OR symmetrical relational loyalty between the employee and employer. If relationship is symmetrically relational or ideological.

ETHICS OF MARKET PARTICIPATION:

"Markets Without Symbolic Limits" by Brennan and Jaworski "The Ethics of Lateral Hiring" by Gardner, Stansbury, and Hart "Libertarianism and Pollution" by Matt Zwolinski

ETHICS IN COMMUNICATION:

"On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt

ETHICS IN COMMUNICATION (Honesty in business):

"The Inconclusive Case Against Manipulative Advertising" by Michael Philips

ETHICS IN A PRINCIPLE-AGENT RELATIONSHIP/ THEORIES OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:

"The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit" by Milton Friedman "Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation" by R. Edward Freeman "What is Really Unethical About Insider Trading?" by Jennifer Moore "Denying Corporate Rights and Punishing Corporate Wrong" by Amy Sepinwall

Consumerism:

-Began in early 20th century. -It's necessary to bring about the greater good. -If it's not there, people go crazy and hurt each other. -Based entirely on dishonesty. -Being brainwashed for your own good. -Manipulated: affecting your free will. -This is going against freedom: puppet. KANT would be AGAINST this. Are you freely buying the product out of your own choice or are you being appealed by your emotions?

SIMILARITIES between bullshit and lying:

-Both want you to believe they are telling the truth***? -Both want to get away with something (motive)

Why should some goods not be traded?

-Bribery -Exploitation (price gouging) -Semiotic objections -Degradation of one party

Why can what someone says be true but still bullshit, and why what someone says can be false but NOT bullshit (or a lie for that matter):

-Bullshit has no concern for the truth, but what he/she says can happen to be truthful (ex: shooting arrow on bullseye) -Something can be false because they care about the truth, they just happened to get it wrong

Reasons why we typically are more tolerant of bullshit than we are of lies:

-Bullshitter in not intending to deceive someone, he just does not care about the truth of what he is saying; not trying to report or conceal truth -The liar knows the truth and deliberately decides to create a falsehood; attempt to lead away form truth (conceal it) -There is a difference in intentions

When is lateral hiring okay?

-If the relationship is transactional; the only thing that matters is the reasonable expectations that the employee/employer has -If one side of the relationship OR both view the relationship as transactional, then lateral hiring IS permissible. -Both parties view loyalties as transactional: SYMMETRIC, lateral hiring is okay OR -One party views loyalties as transactional: ASYMMETRIC, lateral hiring is okay ...Otherwise, lateral hiring is not okay

William's integrity objection:

-Integrity consequence: commitment to be honest and treat others as rational beings/not tricking people. -Utilitarianism: long term good of a person (if a happy person dies young, there is no reason to think a short life was an unhappy one -Good vs. happiness: might think that living a good life consists of flourishing

Libertarianism environmentalism:

-Interfering with people's properties/infringement on someones property; libertarians should be concerned with this. -Libertarian is typically associated with anti-environmentalism/let the free market do what they want -Author says that libertarianism leads us to such a strong view of environmentalism

Semiotic objections:

-Involve expression or communication, transactions that express disrespect; objections to participation in certain markets expresses disrespect (ex. to sex trade/organ sales) -That in some way trading something expresses disrespect (different variations) -Relationship between the buyer and seller; asymmetry in and out of a situation (ex. people profit off of a historical injustice)

Why does Frankfurt think bullshitting is more dangerous than lying?

-It erodes the possibility of the truth existing and being found -A liar is a response to the truth, and to some extent has a respect for it. A bullshitter has no regard for the respect of the truth and pays no attention at all

Characteristics of lying:

-Know the truth and then blatantly disregard it -Engaged in a process of deterring the truth; blatantly disregard the truth and deliberately misrepresent facts

HOMEWORK QUESTION: What is "Levitt's argument"?

-Levitt's argument is a reply to Gabrieth's fluent society (endless, pointless cycle of consumerism) that says we create wealth, and that wealth results in advertising -Levitt's reply says that consumerism and manipulative advertising will enrich out lives; he says that we want/desire to be manipulated. He uses a consequentialist argument/utilitarian defense

Autonomy and principle of humanity:

-Manipulative ads seem objectionable because they deny personal autonomy (freedom from external control or influence) - People become consumers and make product choices precisely through agencies and causes outside their control and not through conscious and crtitical evaluation -Implicit content causes people to accept emotionalized, superficial, and oversimplified claims

Norms against lateral hiring:

-Norm against this; viewed distastefully -One company gets to reap the benefits of the employees previous training at their last job and just get their skills -Concerns with loyalty in the employer/ee relationship -History of norm against it, morally objectionable (property relationship/ownership)

Reasons why not only steak holders matter:

-Not just the steak holder is responsible for the stake of the company; more than shareholders affect success. -Freeman makes use of the Principle of Universalizability (Rawl's: what would everyone reasonably accept). He also appeals to the Principle of Humanity (shouldn't treat people as a mere means; should treat people as ends in themselves). -Steak holders are indirectly concerned with the shareholder and the shareholder theory is directly concerned with the steak holder.

Manipulative advertising:

-Not rational persuasion -SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES: do not make an argument, but an association with psychology that subtly affects your perception of the product (ex. sexy people in beer ads) -Creates perceptions; consumer driven society -No weighing reasons (benefits vs. costs)

Deontology:

-Principle of humanity -Principle of universalizability

Brennan and Jaworski's CONSEQUENTIALIST line of reasoning (in determining whether it is ethical to proceed a market that is unethical):

-Realize that conventions are contingent on the society and time --Social contingency: different cultures and time periods -Ask "What are the costs and benefits of adhering to the convention?" to determine if it makes sense to go along with the convention --Society can have bad conventions; just because they are conventions doesn't mean we have to follow them

Lateral hiring/also called "poaching":

-The idea of instead of recruiting people from college, you go to other businesses and hire their employees away from them -It is a norm, but there is often a norm against lateral hiring; viewed as unethical/inappropriate

Google/yahoo example:

-These companies won't engage in hiring people in the same labor market -Consideration people raise: undermines loyalty between employer and employee -Hiring someone on another person's dime; one company already spent money/resources training their employee

libertarianism leads us to such a strong view of environmentalism:

-You can't trespass, property rights can never be violated no matter what the ordinary considerations are -This means that even negative externalities would seem to be a problem for libertarianism as it is a violation of property rights

Characteristics of bullshit:

-You care what people say about you -Fill in general ideas -Persuasive; trying to make someone believe you know what you're talking about, not necessarily if the information is correct -NO regard for the TRUTH; people say what they want to in order to "win" a situational outcome -Engaged in a path surrounding the general truth without a common knowledge and ignorance of the truth

Consumerism is immoral with regard to Kantianism. It takes away the two most important things:

1. Free will 2. Reason.

Four possible ethical attacks on manipulative advertising. These are the claims that such advertising:

1. Has negative consequences for utility 2. Undermines personal autonomy 3. Violates Kant's categorical imperative 4. Weakens the personal virtue of its practitioners and its victims.

Two ways of treating people with autonomy:

1. Identification; Deep-self Theory: Philip says that manipulative advertising is not a violation of autonomy. 2. Procedural independence: has to do in particular with how your desires are created/where they come from (Reasons-responsiveness)

HOMEWORK QUESTION: What are semiotic objections to markets?

1. Mere commodity objection: express disrespectful attitude 2. Wrong signal objection: about how you treat things, regardless of your attitude; disrespectful treatment 3. Wrong currency objection: money expresses estrangement; the relationship is viewed as not as close as it should be

THREE semiotic objections:

1. Mere commodity objection: express disrespectful attitude -ex. putting a price on something and viewing it as a mere commodity 2. Wrong signal objection: about how you treat things, regardless of your attitude; disrespectful treatment -ex: in certain cultures, it is considered disrespectful not to shake a persons hand OR wearing white to a wedding that isn't yours 3. Wrong currency objection: money estranges relationships by quantifying them; the relationship is viewed as not as close as it should be -ex: paying for sex

Zwolinski rejects 3 people:

1. Nozick: Nozick's solution is "cross and compensate". If someone pollutes on another person's property, they compensate them. As long as the consequences for society are good as a whole, it is okay as long as they pay. --Zwolinski rejects this solution because he says it is not a strong protection for rights (it infringes on people's rights). You'd just be treating people as mere means for economic growth and the sake of society as a whole (this violates the principle of humanity); seems to violate Nozick's moral considerations. 2. Rothbard: Rothbard says it is okay to pollute if the pollution is not tangible/undetectable, if you were not the sole cause of it, or if you were the first comer (if you build a factory first, and then people build houses around you). --Zwolinski rejects this. He thinks these are bad excuses for pollution because it is too complicated to look for "if A caused B". --Example against Rothbard's "not sole cause" argument: New Year's eve celebration. 100 people fire their gun into the air. A bullet kills a person. Just because you can't identify who shot the gun that killed someone does not mean someone shouldn't be held responsible. 3. Mack: Live and let live. Mack looks at a famous property rights case; says we should aim for a society where we live and let live. We want to avoid malicious intrusions, and we can't live together if we hold each other responsible for every effect we have on each other. However, we CAN avoid intentional/unnecessary negative externalities. --Zwolinski agrees with Mack, but he says that this is not enough. Pollution is not always intentional, but it still may be reckless. Because we live in an interconnected world, a lot of pollution won't be the result of one person acting; it will be the result of many people acting (people are acting reasonably on their behalf; tragedy of the commons). Zwolinski wants to accept something like Mack's pollution, but he thinks it overlooks the importance of interconnectedness.

Two controversial assumptions about advertising:

1. That it plays a major role in increasing the general propensity to consume 2. That it powerfully influences individual consumer purchase decisions. Ethically, manipulative advertising is a problematic practice.

MICHAEL PHILIPS: "THE INCONCLUSIVE CASE AGAINST MANIPULATIVE ADVERTISING"

10/18

BRENNAN AND JAWORSKI: "MARKETS WITHOUT SYMBOLIC LIMITS"

10/25

GARDNER, STANSBURY, AND HART: "THE ETHICS OF LATERAL HIRING"

10/30 You can skip the material starting with the heading "A Critical Genealogy of Lateral Hiring" through the end of page 348.

MATT ZWOLINSKI: "LIBERTARIANISM AND POLLUTION"

11/1

JENNIFER MOORE: "WHAT IS REALLY UNETHICAL ABOUT INSIDER TRADING?"

11/11

MILTON FRIEDMAN: "THE SOCAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS IS TO INCREASE ITS PROFIT"

11/6

R. EDWARD FREEMAN: "STAKEHOLDER THEORY OF THE MODERN CORPORATION"

11/8

John Kenneth Galbraith:

20th century economist; asks "How is tricking people into buying things they don't need useful?"

Authors draw a relationship between transactional, relational and ideological:

3 CURRENCIES OF LOYALTY: Transactional: if you give something, I give something; purely material and not beyond paycheck Relational: involves expectations and obligations formed in personal relationships (interpersonal affiliations, trust, and general allegiance to coworkers, supervisors, and the organization); values employee as a person (external). Ideological: we're all in this together for some common goal (classic example: non- profit)

Libertarianism:

A strict view of when you may or may not pollute; let the free market do what it wants, property rights are overridden (anti-environmental)

QUIZ QUESTION: According to Gardner, Stansbury, and Hart, under what conditions is attempting to engage in lateral hiring IMPERMISSIBLE?

According to Gardner, Stansbury, and Hart, attempting to engage in lateral hiring is impermissible when there is symmetric relational or ideological loyalty.

Are consumers autonomous on Levitt's assumptions?

Advertising manipulates consumers because they knowingly and rationally want to be manipulated.

Theodore Levitt:

Asks "Are we really being manipulated?"

Symmetric vs. asymmetric:

Authors point out that the relationship between the employer and employee may not always be symmetrical.

When is lateral hiring IMPERMISSIBLE?

Authors say that only when there is a symmetric relational or ideological loyalty.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS on Manipulative advertising (Griffith's)

Autonomy and principle of humanity: manipulative advertising does NOT treat people as ends in themselves because it doesn't honor people's autonomy; it creates new desires that short circuit our rational thinking. TWO ways of treating people with autonomy: 1. IDENTIFICATION: do we actually identify with these desires, or are they someone else's? ---Yes. We do identify with these desires from manipulative advertising because we willingly engage with advertising --Deep self: your own desires, not imposed (ex. parent telling child, parent desire) 2. PROCEDURAL INDEPENDENCE: extent to which desires or beliefs are guided by reason and rational thinking (reasons responsiveness) ---Autonomy exists to which our desires are guided by rational decisions

Philips' argument regarding manipulative advertising:

Believes that manipulative advertising is NOT stating a falsehood, it just twists peoples perceptions and takes advantage of their vulnerability/appeals to peoples psychology and emotions It does NOT use rational persuasion

Utilitarianism:

Branch of consequentialism Idea that the goal of society should be to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; maximize aggregate utility.

In light of his discussion of bluffing, what does Frankfurt conclude is a fundamental aspect of the essential nature of bullshit:

Bullshit is produced without concern for the truth but that does not necessarily mean it is false; it can be true

Why is there so much bullshit?

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.

DIFFERENCES between bullshit and lying:

Bullshitters: -Do not consciously deceive -Don't know or care about the truth -Ignore or reject the distinction between truth and falsity Liars: -Engage in a conscious act of deception -Know the truth but attempt to hide it -Spread untruths but are still aware of the distinction between true and false

Insider Trading:

Buying or selling of steak in material non-public information; information that one gets from participating/working in the company that the "outside world" doesn't know, and then you buy/sell stocks based on this inside information.

Old Spice Man video/Levitt's argument:

Did you really believe that if you use this you'll be like the Old Spice Man? No one really believes in the advertising. We are not really being manipulated. People are happy going shopping; satisfies happiness in consequentialism. Therefore, advertising and consumerism has no immoral or unethical actions according to Levitt.

Brennan and Jaworski's response to the two later semiotic objections (objections 2 & 3):

Consequentialist line of reasoning: 2. It is very culture specific, so it is arbitrary; norms against trade are culturally specific (culturally contingent). From this, they think the Wrong Signals Objection should be objectionable. 3. Should we honor the norm based on the society? Weigh cost-benefit of the norm (if society follows this norm, determine if it is going to have good consequences or bad)

Bullshit vs. bluffing:

Frankfurt observes that bullshit is closer to bluffing than to lying and that bluffing is a matter not of falsity but of fakery (of being phony). Frankfurt thinks a distinctive of fakes or phonies: -The only thing wrong with a counterfeit is not the actual product, but instead how it was made -Bullshit is not concerned with being true, but it can happen to be true (ex: counterfeit painting; product can be identical)

When is bullshit unavoidable:

Frankfurt says bullshit is unavoidable when a person's obligation to speak of a topic surpasses their knowledge of the topic.

Bullshit:

Frankfurt says that is must not be assumed that bullshit always and necessarily has pretentiousness as its motive. Answering a question you do not know the answer to by presenting knowledge/facts, in an attempt to get it somewhat correct

Friedman's shareholder theory:

Friedman says it is not okay to act in a certain way because businesses are spending other people's money. As the agent, you have the responsibility to act on the principle's behalf because you are making decisions with someone else's money. In particular, you are working with the shareholder's money (the owner of the company). Friedman says that it is unethical for a manager to make decisions (like not to pollute) with anything in mind other than the companies bottom line, because that is where your obligation lies.

Friedman's take on the shareholder theory in terms of ethics and morals:

Friedman says that people should act ethically outside of a principle-agent relationship, BUT when you are in a fiduciary relationship, your obligation is to make the shareholder money (you are using their money in order to do so). This is the standard view of Friedman. When the manager makes decisions he/she has not idea how those ideas will affect the aggregate (similar to Hayek's view; the government should not make decisions because they do not know what the best optimal decision is)

HOMEWORK QUESTION: Why does Friedman think the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits?

Friedman's shareholder theory says that the obligation of the manager is to maximize profit of the company. He says this because there is a duty/ principle-agent between the shareholder (owner of the company) and the manager/director. There is a charitable purpose; the default obligation is to maximize profit, so the manager should be doing things to make the shareholder money.

Galbraith's argument regarding manipulative advertising:

Galbraith is AGAINST advertising in modern American consumer society. Thinks manipulative advertising generates artificial wants for things we didn't desire before Capitalistic consumer cycle (endless/pointless consumption); people pick jobs to make money to purchase products in the ad, driven by advertising (greater wealth)

What type of libertarian environment is Zwolinski arguing for?

He is trying to argue for a moderate libertarian environment rather than an extreme one or none at all.

HOMEWORK QUESTION: In what way does Zwolinski suggest libertarianism might be "too radical" when it comes to the protection of the environment?

If property rights are absolute and so absolute and so important that we can't live together without violating each other's rights, than a libertarian faces a problem because it is inevitable that people will engage in some sort of pollution, so a society that strives to conform to libertarian principles will always fail; there is no way to avoid causing negative externalities/property right violations. Thus, he is trying to argue for a moderate libertarian environment rather than an extreme one or none at all.

Property rights are absolute:

If property rights are absolute and so important that we can't live together without violating each other's rights, than a libertarian faces a problem because it is inevitable that people will engage in some sort of pollution, so a society that strives to conform to libertarian principles will always fail; there is no way to avoid causing negative externalities/property right violations

What is the RIGHT reason that Moore says insider trading is wrong?

Insider trading is wrong because it breaks/violates fiduciary relationships. To be a part of a company means to do things in the companies best interest, not in your own.

HOMEWORK QUESTION: What does Moore think is really unethical about insider trading?

It violates fiduciary relationships. People were chosen by the shareholders to make decisions in the companies interest.

Reason-responsiveness:

It's not about what you need it's about what you desire. You can't allow people to be truly free. Reason is out. Consumerism is immoral with regard to Kantianism. Takes away the two most important things: free will, reason.

Levitt's argument regarding manipulative advertising:

Levitt DEFENDS manipulative advertising. Thinks people need manipulative advertising because life is boring and it creates an enriched perception of life (transcend real life), because people like to consume, making people feel good psychologically. Improves economy, perpetuates the cycle. We like goods that ensure us status differences/happiness. This maximizes overall happiness in society (UTILITARIAN DEFENSE)

Good/flourishing:

Live a life fit for a human, exercise distinctive capacities of a human being (maybe you can't always do this when thinking materialistically)

Gardner, Stansbury, and Hart say that lateral hiring isn't always okay. It depends on:

Loyalty, but the loyalty is conditional. - whether or not lateral hiring is considered ethically permissible is determined by the level of loyalty between the employee and the employer -loyalty must be strong and symmetric (meaning that the employee and employer are equally loyal to each other) in order for lateral hiring to be impermissible

Michael Philip's view on manipulative advertising:

Michael Phillips demonstrated that overall manipulative advertising is ethically wrong. Utilitarianism supports manipulative advertising, however, the strongest arguments against it are Kantianism and personal virtues.

QUIZ QUESTION: Why does Milton Friedman think the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits?

Milton Friedman thinks the social responsibility of business is to increase profit. Friedman's Shareholder Theory says that the obligation of the manager is to maximize profit of the company. He says that because there is a principle-agent relationship between the shareholder and manager/director of the company, the manager has a duty to the shareholder because 1.) its the shareholder's money that they are spending (dealing with other people's money). There is a charitable purpose; the default obligation is to maximize profit, so the manger should be doing things to make the shareholder money. Moreover, it is the social responsibility of the business to increase its profits because 2.) when you are in a FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, the main focus/obligation is to the shareholder; it would be unethical for the manager to make decisions (like not to pollute) with anything in mind other than the companies bottom line.

What does Moore say about the argument that insider trading is UNFAIR because there is an unequal access to information?

Moore thinks that it is a weak argument because there is no general duty to disclose. people in the company are privy to information that people outside the company are not. PLUMBER EXAMPLE: The plumber knows more than you do about plumbing. Moore doesn't think this is morally objectionable because we just make different choice about what to learn (like the plumber learning about plumbing instead of learning about finance)

Loyalty is conditional:

Not every relationship between employee/er has the same degree of loyalty (transactional, relational, ideological)

Consumer markets:

Pertains to buyers who purchase goods and services for consumption rather than resale

HOMEWORK QUESTION: Why is Philips skeptical that autonomy provides an ethical reason against manipulative advertising?

Philips is skeptical that autonomy provides an ethical reason against manipulative advertising because: Philips says that manipulative advertising doesn't treat people as a mere means. There is a mutual benefit, so people are not just being used.

According to Philips, is manipulative advertising comparable with virtue ethics?

Philips says manipulative advertising is not compatible with virtue ethics; it looks like Williams' integrity objection

Treatment as a mere means (according to Philip's):

Philips says that manipulative advertising doesn't treat people as a mere means. There is a mutual benefit, so people are not just being used.

Negative externalities:

Pollution

HARRY FRANKFURT: "ON BULLSHIT"

Read 1-24 and 62 through the end; 10/17

Freeman's stakeholder theory:

Rejects the shareholder theory. Says that besides shareholders, duties are owed to steak holders (employees, customers, society as a whole). A steak holder on this "narrow understanding" are people necessary for the company to exist (employees and customers). "Wide understanding" of steak holders are people affected by the business (competitors). Freeman is concerned with the "narrow understanding" of steak holders.

What worry does Zwolinski point out with libertarian environmentalism:

Says that we are constantly creating effects for others that people are not consenting to. Some people say that given this, we should reject this route. Zwolinski doesn't agree; he says it can be a plausible theory of distributive justice if it is practiced in MODERATION. Moderate environmentalist works with libertarian.

QUIZ QUESTION: What are semiotic objections to markets?

Semiotic objections to markets (as discussed by Brennan and Jaworski) says objections to participation in certain markets expresses disrespect (ex. to engage in sex trade/organ sales); in some way, trading something expresses disrespect. There are variations of this: 1.) Mere Commodity Objection: express disrespectful attitudes, 2.) Wrong Signal Objection: disrespectful treatment; how you treat things regardless of your attitude, and 3.) Wrong Currency Objection: money expresses estrangement; the relationship is viewed as not as close as it should be.

Principle of humanity:

Treat people as ends in themselves (treat them with autonomy) and not mere means.

Principle of universalizability:

Treating people in ways that everyone could reasonably accept.

Is insider trading a moral or unethical practice?

Unethical because: 1. Unfair: The sum inequality involved; UNEQUAL INFORMATION. People on the inside of companies are getting an advantage, and the people on the outside aren't. Moore thinks that this is a weak argument because you are taking opportunities that were made available to you. 2. Harm: Insider trading is bad because it harms customers. Moore says not necessarily. 3. Property rights: Insider trading violates a companies property rights. Moore disagrees; she says that the company can consent, so it is not unethical (they can do what they want with their information).

How does utilitarianism support manipulative advertising?

Utilitarian defense says to maximize overall happiness: -Directly: manipulative advertising makes us happy -Indirectly: we have a lot of things that improve life and we probably couldn't get them as easily without ads; there is a cycle to promote the well-being of the economy (economic growth/by product argument)

Virtue ethics:

Virtue ethics competes with consequentialism and deontology. It says to live a life of virtue, as a virtuous person does; it does not tell us what to do/what kind of person to be/what kinds of actions to take.

Lying:

Want the other person to believe what you are saying.

Ford video:

What's being sold? Not the car, but the lifestyle. You'll be like the young, happy couple if you buy that car. "If I buy that car I'll be like them." Illogical. What's the greater good if everyone is being led to buy things they don't need? More money for our company.

Zwolinski explores this question:

When is it appropriate to be in a market that creates negative externalities/what are your moral obligations?

Frankfurt's concern about bullshitting:

a culture that permits bullshitting is more worrisome than one that permits lying because people who bullshit have no concern for the truth whereas people who lie do, they're just not choosing to share it ex. used car salesman sells old car and tells the people it will last even though he knows it won't (he is lying) a bullshitter might do this but they wouldn't know whether to not the car would last