Googles Moral Compromise in China: A Struggle between Universalism and Relativism - Case Study Example

?Running Head: Business Google’s Moral Compromise in China: A Struggle between Universalism and Relativism A Case Analysis of Professor Date of Submission Introduction The issue of moral relativism versus moral universalism involves a philosophical premise, regarding the universality of ideas, not of values. Are there universal standards that permit us to learn about people and their opinions across the borders of cultural diversity? This paper examines a particular assumption which states that one can keep on challenging the argument that norms defending human rights, and opinions supporting freedom, are culturally particularistic and cannot perhaps possess any universal legitimacy. This analysis starts with a brief description of the debate between moral relativism and moral universalism. The second section presents an analysis of the case, which is Google in China, in terms of its connection to the ethics debate. Particularly, the analysis tries to determine whether China’s Internet censorship approach is universalistic or relativistic, and, more importantly, whether Google’s response to the impenetrability of China’s culture and ideals reflects a universalistic or relativistic model of morality. Overview of the Moral Relativism and Moral Universalism Debate Moral relativism is the view that moral standards are particular or distinct to culture and personal judgments. It argues that a universal moral standard does not exist. On the other hand, moral universalism argues that morality is valid universally, irrespective of gender, race, religion, culture, nationality, or other unique attributes; in the debate, Universalists claim that morality have been concretely delineated in different international agreements and declarations whereas relativists relate to distinct cultural viewpoints (McDonald, 2010). The various morality theories are generated by various view of morality. These theories have built divisions and barriers in human society. The influence of these moral views on people’s lives is considerable. It affects the moral attitude and behavior of individuals. Hence, there are dilemmas of ethical conflicts and double moral standards. Individuals are not certain of the form of morality they should conform to, either moral universalism or moral relativism. This predicament is continuously experienced by Google in their operation in China. Moral relativism, in business, usually becomes traditional morality and unethical decisions are usually defended on the theory of ‘commonly accepted practice’ (McDonald, 2010, 451). A number of scholars in international business have been distrustful of circumstances where moral relativism has been employed as a kind of ‘moral sanctuary’ (McDonald, 2010, 451). For instance, companies may have carried out a decision which generally would be viewed as unethical but have asserted that the decision is ethical, or reasonable, since it falls within a particular cluster of moral norms promoted by the society where in they are in service. In reaction to this argument, which basically reinforces the arguments that deeds are impervious to common moral standards because they originate from a particular set of standards or codes that surpass general norms, Roberts (1986 as cited in McDonald, 2010) has argued that, because of the intricacies of international business, there is a certain extent of excuse for companies demanding immunity from moral censure by sheltering behind premises of moral relativism, particularly because of their need to make room for diverse cultural situations. Unsurprisingly, this argument is controversial. It may be appealing to refuse to believe that there are universal principles that can provide direction to those whose trade has to be carried out on a global arena. Maybe, multinational business firms should recognize and applaud relativism as a principle and proclaim itself in support of an ethic of conduct that is situational, domestic, and local. The strength of relativism in international business ethics is quite evident and has several plus points (Warren, 2011, 214): it encourages acceptance and open-mindedness; it makes the most of multinational firms’ freedom of choice, while universalism discards options; it values cultural and individual diversity; and ultimately, it somewhat justifies in achieving impartiality in moral decisions. On the other hand, moral universalism states that there is only one moral law that is valid to everybody which is obtained from shared way of thinking and needs. Basically speaking, according to Warren (2011), there are moral requirements that everybody has adequate justification to conform to and these requirements are the root of all moral justifications. Moral universalism states that an all-pervading code of ethics should be binding across the globe, being similarly applicable in all times and places. It is essential to understand that whether cultures, organizations, or people conform to these common standards is not in question (Warren, 2011). The moral principles may be universal but compliance may vary. Thus, ‘perceived relativity’ (McDonald, 2010, 453) is attained but, essentially, all conduct is guided by universal moral standards that have been judged, through incident, to be necessary for successful survival. Prasad and Rao (1982 as cited in McDonald, 2010), contrary to the arguments of relativisms and with regard to managers, have argued that particular moral standards, like compassion, self-discipline, honesty, loyalty, and integrity, are viewed as fundamental moral norms and are generally viewed as element of most cultures but compliance to those norms differs significantly. Case Analysis Identifying the Problem The disagreement between China and Google is evidently a case of overbearing moral relativism. The ethics debate has been complicated and has involved denunciation of Google, not just in China. The suspected involvement of a number of major U.S. firms, Cisco, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft, in China’s Internet censorship is the current string in this historical chronicle of corporate moral responsibility. The quite particularistic Internet censorship of China sparked controversies and gained intense, complex reactions from different stakeholders, such as the U.S. Congressional hearings. According to Brenkert (2009), the ethical problem of Google was aggravated when the operations of American firms in Internet-regulating nations posed more challenging questions of universal and relativistic law. In fact, Google has been rigorously scrutinized and widely criticized for its submission to China’s Communist Party and its severe censorship policies, at times even disclosing personal information resulting in the capture and persecution of Chinese people.  These Internet Content Providers (ICPs) have been denounced fervently by human rights advocates, the United States government, the European Union, and several others for sacrificing universal moral standards, such as free speech and expression, for the sake of profit (Deva, 2007). Nevertheless, Google explains that they are left with no choice but to yield to China’s relativistic view of censorship—or else, they will face the possibility of being driven out of the market entirely. Between universalism and relativism, Google points out that it is more sensible to adopt a morally relativistic stance and stay in the market than to stick with the universal ideals of freedom, free speech and expressions, etc., and leave totally. It is certain that corporate moral responsibility in Chinese censorship poses important issues and, furthermore, unravels difficult questions concerning how to address the dilemmas that emerge from the activities of companies in the Chinese market. Ethical Appropriateness of Google’s Response to Chinese Censorship You are talking about [Internet] technology that everyone acknowledges is critical for liberalization and democratization… In our world, taking the position that if it’s not 100 percent, you shouldn’t go in is just not sensible if what you want at the end of the day is more human rights and [I]nternet freedom (Bauml, 2011, 699). In most nations, the notion of freer and open information access and a more informed public is regarded universally good. In certain countries, it is not essentially regarded favorable (Deva, 2007). It relies on whether that information is in harmony with the opinion of the local government. This fact reveals the issue of moral relativism and universalism in the area of freedom of speech and expression. That dilemma hovers in the People’s Republic of China and in several other nations as well. Hence when Google, which is known as a universal information disseminator, penetrates a culturally particularistic country, like China, there emerges a conflict. The Google executives observed that there were a large number of individuals accessing the Internet in China, which is perhaps the biggest marketplace in the world from the perspective of business these days (Healy, 2007). Yet more significantly, as stated by Thompson (2006), it would be the biggest Internet user base in the world, and whatever is necessary or good on the Information Superhighway should not be concealed to the people. Hence Google had lots of consideration when it entered China. Can we positively contribute in a self-determining manner that is neither wrong nor right, but simply enlightening? Should we prioritize the standpoint of the Chinese government, or should we prioritize the right of the world’s people to be informed? The executives deemed that it was necessary to try and find out the level of free information access the Chinese government would be at ease with, or accept, in order to advance the people’s universal right to know. Individuals inside China constantly had restricted access to Google. However, to make the operation more favorable, the service particularistic, Google had to yield to a rigid censorship process (Thompson, 2006). This is where the clash between Google’s universalistic and China’s particularistic moral standards begun. The decision of Google was that, since people in China already bear the Great Firewall of China, it applying a certain level of censorship in its servers would not strip anyone in China the information that they were probable to acquire, yet they could acquire information a lot faster. Google believes that it was much better than the one they already had (Johnson, 2010). Because of this decision, Google received widespread criticism and enormous amount of political scrutiny for its promotion of the Chinese regime’s interests and cause. The declining Chinese market share of China raised a complex ethical problem. Google could sustain operations outside of China, protected from the conditions of the Chinese government for user information and censorship, but confront the risk of losing more market share to Baidu. On the hand, Google may position its servers in China and once more attract a large number of Chinese users, but face legal and political obligations to adhere to Chinese information requirements and self-censorship (Thompson, 2006). In order to avoid being pressured to disclose personal or confidential information, Google made a decision not to provide blogging and e-mail services. With regard to its search engine, the company decided to adhere to the self-censorship policies of China but would pursue the least restrictions. Google decided to divulge censorship in Web pages by declaring, “In order to follow local laws, some search results are not displayed” (Stair & Reynolds, 2011, 241). An ethical controversy arose when Google in 2006 decided to introduce Google.cn, or Google China (Stair & Reynolds, 2011). This adaptation of the globally used search engine of Google was adjusted to the censorship policies of the Chinese government. The initial decision of Google certainly gained praises from the relativistic camp. A foreign business, according to relativists, has the moral obligation to adapt to the culture and economic environment of their host country. This assumption is supported by Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, by stating that the company had an obligation to obey the law in every nation where it operates a business (Thompson, 2006, 9): “We had a choice to enter the country and follow the law, or we had a choice not to enter the country… I think it’s arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning operations and tell that country how to run itself” However, Google’s decision to conform to China’s self-censorship guidelines gained widespread criticism from the universalistic camp. According to Universalists, Google had a “moral duty not to bow to China’s wishes” (Trevino & Nelson, 2011, 436). Hence, the decision of Google to ‘work together’ with the government of China was denigrated. A universalistic organization, Amnesty International, denounced the self-censorship rule of Google. But China defended itself by stating that other Western nations, such as Germany and France, also regulated content. In spite confessing its decision to compromise its principles, Google claimed that it would fulfill a more valuable function in China through involvement (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). The executives stated that it would be a ‘greater evil’ to pull out the service. Even though the decision to operate within China, as stated by the CEO, “involved a lot of hand-wringing and weighing the consequences of censoring result, providing some information to Chinese users is better than none at all” (Trevino & Nelson, 2011, 436). The company referred to the decision a hard but ethical move. However, in 2009, the outlook of Google swayed when it found out that a cyber-attack originating from China plans to destroy the company’s software. The chief legal officer of Google, David Drummond, publicized the attack in a post on the authorized Google blog in 2010 (Cross & Miller, 2011). He revealed that the main objective of the attackers was to hack into the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates in China. He declared that the stakeout and the attacks that the investigation has found out have forced Google to proclaim a reform in its policy toward China (Cross & Miller, 2011, 180): “We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn… We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn and potentially our offices in China”. Google finally terminated operations in Google.cn on March 2010 (Cross & Miller, 2011). Universalists and human rights advocates extolled the attempts of Google to challenge suppression of its search content. It appears that Google penetrated China with grand expectations of profit and expansion. In order to initiate operation in China, Google agreed to comply with China’s self-censorship policy and defended these ethical negotiations from a dubious pragmatic perspective. However, Google could not defend its move for greater profits; it could not keep on modifying its ethics to adhere to the demands of the Chinese government. By terminating Google.cn, the company moved toward restoring integrity and wholly denounced China’s suppression of the freedom of speech and expression. Yet, it should also be taken into account the less ethical justifications of Google for shutting down its Google China website. It is important to keep in mind that after several years of enduring ethical denigrations, the company only decided to shut down its primary Chinese website after the discovery of a cyber-attack. This incident intensified disapproval of Google’s contribution in China’s attack on human rights activists. If not for this heightened public demands, Google might have maintained its Google China and boost their Chinese market share. Furthermore, even though Google terminated their Google.cn, the company executives have belittled the importance of its termination. David Drummond asserted in a New York Times’ editorial that he does not view the decision of Google to cater to Chinese users from outside the country as defiance (Cross & Miller, 2011). Evidently, Google refuses to defy the ethical standard of the Chinese government. Although Google’s position toward the Chinese government might have been more daring and more straightforward, the company still breaks new ground for other transnational firms that are lured to discard ethics for the sake of profit. Conclusions Although there have been quite a few recommendations conceived by different global and local sources in the attempt to deal with violations of human rights and ending corporate conspiracy (Brenkert, 2009), this analysis claims that none are adequate to resolve the actual issue. We should not perceive or treat moral standards in China in terms of mainstream moral values. We should be pleased about the small triumphs and persuade the government of China to enhance freedom of speech and expression, and provide more leniencies in information access, while persuading U.S. Internet content providers, like Google and Yahoo!, to continue and boost their operations in China’s market. The reaction of China to the most recent decisions of Google displays assurance for the future and impartial proof that a ‘moderated’ Google is much more promising than without Google. Google’s decision to sacrifice its universal goal of informing and educating people for the sake of gratifying the particularistic interests and viewpoints of the Chinese government is quite problematic in ethical terms. On the surface, it appears by itself detestable, even revolting, to propose that Google and other American Internet content providers should stay in Chinese market, conspiratorial in its censorship activities and possibly intensifying human rights violations. However, it is essential to understand that the particularistic concepts of freedoms and rights in China are not fully formed, but emergent indications of progress are present that foretell future growth. Finally, it is by now evident that circumstances in China are ready for transformation. However, for now, there are no simple or immediate solutions to this dilemma. However, what is definite is that abandoning the market completely would be detrimental to the main objective of promoting more freedom and universal rights in China. If the world genuinely wants to witness more universal standards on speech- and expression-related concerns, it is simply understandable that foreign companies should be permitted to continue operating in China’s market instead of removing them and allowing them to function independently and remotely. Google is in an excellent position to make the most of opportunities to boost the flow of and access to information in China. Hence, Google’s presence is not merely a temporary advantage to the technological domain but will keep on providing actual and concrete prospects for development. Although it is definitely essential to discontinue or thwart further involvements in human rights abuses, major transformations will not take place immediately. To make China more ‘universally moral’, people should first recognize small triumphs and realize that a sufficient durable solution is probable but that, for the time being, sustaining a free, open, and clear discourse can simply function to speed up the decisive objective of promoting universal moral freedom in morally particularistic China. References n.a. (2006). “Google censors itself for China” BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm Bauml, J. (2011). “It’s a Mad, Mad Internet: Globalization and the Challenges Presented by Internet Censorship” Federal Communications Law Journal, 63(3), 697+ Brenkert, G. (2009). “Google, Human Rights, and Moral Compromise” Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 453-478. Cross, F. & Miller, R. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases- Ethical, Regulatory, Global, and Corporate Issues. Mason, OH: Southwestern College/West. Deva, S. (2007). “Corporate Complicity in Internet Censorship in China: Who Cares for the Global Compact or the Global Online Freedom Act?” The George Washington International Law Review, 39(2), 255+ Healy, S. (2007). “The Great Firewall of China” Social Education, 71(3), 158+ Johnson, B. (2010). “Google stops censoring Chinese search engine: How it happened” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/mar/22/google-china-live McDonald, G. (2010). “Ethical relativism vs. Absolutism: research implications” European Business review, 22(4), 446-464. Stair, R. & Reynolds, G. (2011). Fundamentals of Information Systems. Boston, MA: Course Technology. Thompson, C. (2006). “Google’s China Problem” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html Trevino, L. & Nelson, K. (2011). Managing Business Ethics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Warren, R. (2011). “Are we making progress in international business ethics?” Humanomics, 27(3), 212-224. Read More