Moral Universalism and Moral Relativism, Google in China - Case Study Example

Running head: MORAL UNIVERSALISM AND MORAL RELATIVISM Moral Universalism and Moral Relativism Moral universalism Name Institution Moral universalism is the position that some system of ethics is applicable to all people despite of color, race, culture, religion and nationality, must possess a plurality over which it is ranged-a plurality diverse persons, jurisdictions, nations, or localities on which morality proves an authority that is universal. The quests for principles that are universally valid relating to morality are sharply challenged by diversity. According to Deresky (2008), moral universalism traditionally blends an answer to the metaphysical question or scientific “what?” query with a response to the political “who” query. Universalism assumes that the trait discovery shared by all human beings comes up to show why, and sometimes how, all human beings should be organized into a cosmopolis. It proposes a metaphysical or scientific foundation for politics globally. Following the conformity to the religious that human beings are formed in the image of God, philosophical universalism has claims that the presence of common traits testifies to a purpose which is common. It stipulates that the form of human community that what is ideal can be decided by a human nature that is universal (Capps, Lynch & Massey, 2008). According to Ryan (2003), it has been proposed that the constitution authors of the United States of America had no entitlement to describing themselves using the pronoun “we” in referring to themselves as the people of united states of America. They were entitled to refer to themselves as “we” and refer themselves as representatives of white male owners of property of the United States of America. The presence of a community which is moral can plausibly and devoid of qualification recognize itself as “we” in referring themselves as people of the United States of America. A universal ethic is a moral system that is applicable to all humanity universally. Moral universalism provides a world that will have no disagreement in morality owing to the fact that every one thinks in the same way universally and care about morals generally. Moral standards are not expected to differ from one individual to another and there is no chance for bias or opinions (Deresky, 2008). Many religions comprising of Islam and Christianity possess moral positions that are universal, and have their position of morality having set by a deity, and consequently universal, absolute, unchangeable, and perfect. Moral universalism revolves around the principle that the moral evaluation of people and their conduct, of state of affairs and social rules, must be subjected to fundamental principles that do not, covertly or explicitly, discriminate against particular groups or persons arbitrary. The general idea is explicated in three conditions terms. It is consequently applied to the discrepancy between an individual’s criteria of global and national economic justice. Moral relativism Moral relativism on the other hand refers to the philosophical position that states that morality is relative and moreover people should try to be good conforming to their own consciences. It is a contrast of moral objectivism. Moral relativism supposes that moral principles have no objective standards consequently there is no fast and hard rules on what is wrong and right, on which are founded and should be fought for. Relativism refer to different opinions , absence of a single authority and presence as many truths as there are or cultures or societies putting forward as many ways as possible of doing things differently. It seems to embrace the slogan that beauty lies in the hands of the beholder. In this perspective one man’s meat is another man’s poison. In this regard whatever is good in America will not be necessarily be good in the Republic of China (Ryan, 2003). A phrase that sums up the meaning of relativism is “live and let live”. On this account it is impossible to translate or transmit whatever is true to one society and make it true for another society. It expostulate that human beings exists independently from each other and there is no universal rule that can be used to guide them in one direction. Each society possesses a moral code which is very specific to itself and more often than not it will regard it as the best compared to others. The pioneers of the philosophy of existentialism proclaim that mankind is alone in the world and there is no any principle of morality to turn to save for those enacted by him. Proponents of relativism exults ethnocentrism which assumes that one’s culture is superior to the rest in the world. Relativism postulates the right of an individual to obey his culture. Moral rightness is a matter of obedience to the values of culture. The values are as many as are the culture allover the world. Rightness of morality varies from culture to culture. What is right for one culture it is wrong for another5 culture. Ethical relativism is the theory that explains that morality is relative to the norms embedded in the culture of an individual (Bloomfield, 2003). If an action is right or wrong will be determined by moral norms that are embedded in the culture of a society in which it happens. How a society looks at things like divorce, marriage, roles of family members, death, discrimination, and witchcraft will have different perspectives as they are the number of societies or cultures. Moral relativism is of the view that morality, ethical standards, and positions of wrong or right are exclusively based on culture and consequently subjected to the individual choice as a person. An individual can decide what is wrong for himself and no one can direct the other to decide what is wrong or right. An individual sense of right and wrong stems from what he believes. Google in China Google in China adopted the standard of moral universalism at first and when it realized that it was not making any development it reverted to moral relativism. Prior to Google contemplating penetrating the China market, Yahoo and Microsoft had already launched their systems in China and they were baffled at the cultural barriers that made it difficult to penetrate the market. As opposed to Americans, the Chinese businessmen hardly relied on e-mail and they considered the act of leaving messages to be awkward in social standards. Cultural nuances made sites belonging to companies from America to feel absolutely foreign to Chinese users. Foreign investors in the China market assumed that the government is very furtive about censorship (Bloomfield, 2003). The pioneers of Google in China expected what was good for the Americans was equally good for the Chinese people. The head of Google China went around the country giving lectures to the youths of China on how they could compete with the rest of the world. The pioneer applauded Google venture in the Chinese market and hugely saw it as bringing information to the masses that could even catapult the economy of those living in the rural villages. The equation: youth+equality+freedom+user focus+bottom-up innovation+do not be evil=The miracle of Google, really explains the values that are embodied in the operation of Google. Don’t be evil is a slogan of Google (American Anthropological Association Executive Board, 2007). The pioneer thought that what is hungered for by the youth of America could also be the same that was needed by the youth of China. That was why freedom, equality and innovation were the key ones in the pioneer’s equation. Google thought that the population of people of China hungered for such things like equality and freedom as was compared to other youths in the Western countries. Google expected that the mere fact that it had penetrated the Chinese market it would experience positive growth owing to its strong brand and powerful search engine. Firstly, Google had no offices in China and operated in a foreign soil this alone made it difficult to navigate the great firewall that was put up to censor the material provided by the internet companies. According to Kirchin (2000), the assumption made by Google that it will appeal to the educated was misguided and met with a rude shock. It realized that the restriction enacted by the China authorities were not yet to go by means of an imagined revolution. The population of the people of China had embraced their culture and accepted the government requirement and no one was willing to go against the restrictions. Ironically this brought them a sense of national bride and they were willing to carry out the government order without supervision. The pioneer sums up the attitude of the students he met and employed as not being hungry for democracy and seemed to have resigned to the situation as it was. Human rights and democracy in China apparently did not bother these young people. It was not the role of the government to police the people but the people themselves were living by the rules. According to the pioneer the people of China were free to talk about any of the subject. Chinese people viewed the American democracy as a good form of government and they equally viewed the Chinese government as the good form of government. In other words they embraced relativism, they felt what was good in America was not necessarily good in China. Google had entered the government with the belief that it will easily penetrate the market considering its powerful search engine. The pioneer assumed the youth of China yearned for the same things that were desired by other youths in the old (Capps, Lynch &. Massey, 2008). They embraced the philosophy of universalism. Eventually Google had to change tactic. It was operating from a foreign soil and that was giving it a problem to go pass the great firewall that had blocked its services several times. It also realized that the cultural differences had no universal standards and the people of China were very different of the Americans. It had to conform to the standards of the Chinese in order to appeal to the Chinese people. A professor at a university referred to the act of supporting the local guy. It also realized the government had a hand in regulating competition against the Chinese companies. Google launched its version of Chinese-Google.cn. In a move that was criticized harshly back home, Google gave in to the Chinese policy of censorship. While it purports to do no evil Google went against its own principles and gave in to the wish of the Chinese authorities. By conforming to the standards set by the people of China and the Chinese authorities, Google had accepted the philosophy of relativism and it was applying it to try and overcome the barrier that made growth in China market impossible. The home firms in China did not see piracy as a problem or a crime and they engaged in it in the broad daylight while Google knew this to be a breach of social conduct (Miller, 2002). All in all it was not easy for Google to penetrate the Chinese market and it did not expect to encounter as many barriers as it did. Consequently its decision to conform to the regulation of the Chinese market was timely if it expected to survive in that market. It will be noted that relativism has to be embraced to a certain degree while also on the other hand universalism has to be accepted to a certain level. Sharp cultural differences are to de found among societies in the world over. Some of the practices can cut across different cultures while some remain particular to a certain culture only. Google in China had to real understand what the China market wanted before proceeding with its activities (Levy, 2003). According to Graham (2006), Google had an option of withdrawing from the China market completely which would have a great impact on its profits having invested heavily in the market. Google China did not want to lose the advertising online which it had predicted will grow steadily. However much individuals can believe in universalism, there will be aspects that will be comprised when one gets to a foreign country. Although some standards can remain constant there will be some restructuring to suit the culture of the given place. Regardless of universalism in some principle of the world there will be a specific aspect that is different from that is commonly known (Benbaji, & Fisch, 2004). Benbaji and Fisch, (2004) notes that although Google penetrated the China market it did not embrace the culture of piracy that was not a problem to the Chinese vast population. The Chinese authorities were just making it hard for foreign companies to penetrate their market. It was protecting the local industry that seemed to understand the unwritten code of regulation. There was no written law about the censored materials but the population in china understood what was being required of them without even being asked and it was good not to upset stability and peace by provoking the government. Google thought the educated youth were easy to appeal to without understanding the values and standards of the Chinese culture. Then it is imperative to understand the set standards and up hold relativism to a certain degree although some standards have universal recognition (Graham, 2006). Conclusion In conclusion it will be apt to reiterate the importance of acknowledging the diversity that exist the world over without underestimating the magnitude of adherence. Google idea of China market was initially based on Universalism and it expected to be embraced wholeheartedly when it made its entry into the China market. This was not to be and the management realized that it had to change tactic. It resolved to conform to the standards of the authorities in china and in so doing embraced relativism. The coming of Google market did not make people embrace democracy or human rights because they had learned to live with their condition. References Deresky, H. (2008), Case 2: Google in China: The Big Disconnect’, International Management: Managing across borders and cultures, Text and Cases (6th ed.), New Jersey: Pearson Education, pp. 71-79. Capps, D., M.P. Lynch and D. Massey, 2008, “A Coherent Moral Relativism,” Synthese, 151: 1– 26 American Anthropological Association Executive Board, 2007, “Statement on Human Rights,” American Anthropologist, 49: 539–43 Benbaji, Y. and M. Fisch, 2004, “Through Thick and Thin: A New Defense of Cultural Relativism,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 42: 1–24. Graham, G., 2006, “Tolerance, Pluralism, and Relativism,” in D. Heyd (ed.) Toleration: An Elusive Virtue, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 44–59 Ryan, J.A., 2003, “Moral Relativism and the Argument from Disagreement,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 34: 377–86. Miller, C.B., 2002, “Rorty and Moral Relativism,” European Journal of Philosophy, 10: 354–74 Levy, N., 2003, “Descriptive Relativism: Assessing the Evidence,” The Journal of Value Inquiry, 37: 165–77 Kirchin, S., 2000, “Quasi-Realism, Sensibility Theory, and Ethical Relativism,” Inquiry, 43: 413–28. Bloomfield, P., 2003, “Is There a Moral High Ground?,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 41: 511–26 Read More