Google Case: Ethical Principle

It is rather difficult to talk close ethics as it involves different point of judgment found on different moral standards one has and based on different honest principles one uses. This Google China-cases mostly talks about the ethical dilemma go about by the company, whether it should observe the local law or put its planetary ethical standards as its best interest. Obeying the local law get out fag them to do self-censoring, which then raise many criticism internationally.Based on cultural relativism, it is said that ethics are nothing more than the manifestation of a culture all ethics are culturally determined, so that each firm should adopt the ethics of the culture in which it is operating. It has been explained onwards that China has an totalitarian governmental system contrasts with the Western culture which supports elegant rights and liberties. So, based on this theory, doing self-censoring may be considered as ethical. However, this pragmatic view wont be ver y suitable for justifying an action.The restriction from the Chinese government regarding most sensitive political themes may be accepted by some international people as denying the human rights. Here, based on the rights theories, human beings eat up fundamental rights which establish a nominal level of morally acceptable behavior. Because of the censoring, Chinese people lose their liberty of speech, especially less freedom in receiving information. However, it is part of their law and political system, which should be accepted by every company who wants to conduct backing in China.Some Chinese people have accustomed with the censorship, not consider it as violating human rights, and support it for the sake of the nation. By self-censoring their website, Google is complicit with the Chinese governments effort to restrict the freedom of speech. According to Kantian ethics, it is wrong toward treating people as means, since people should be treated as ends and never as means to the ends of others. When deciding that the benefits of operating in China outweighed the costs, Google used the utilitarian approaches.It holds that the moral worth of actions is determined by their consequences. An action exit be judged as ethical and desirable if the counterweight of best consequences are over the bad consequences. What are the benefits and the costs should be measured carefully by Google. Google claimed that Google. cn would provide bring out internet dish to its customers in China while making more profit for the company. It as well as raised ethical awareness by making its users aware that some results were omitted, thus also put pressure on the other companies to do the same.In addition, it is better to give Chinese users access to information, than to none at all. Those practical and ethical benefits combined with the increasing profit has been considered by Google as outweighing the nix effects of censorship. The negative effects for the company mig ht be criticism for the inconsistence with the Dont be curse motto. For Chinese people, I think, t here will be no significant net negative effects as the Chinese users will still get the illegalise count results, since the government would block the contents using the Great Firewall. after(prenominal) months criticism, Google shut down its Google. cn. It tried to regain its integrity and to protests implicitly the censorship in China. The reasons might come because it realized it couldnt give better services to Chinese users due to many problems, it had denied the human rights, and also it gained the get off market share and profit rather than expected. It made greater disparage for the company. In my opinion, China has different culture and law that should be considered sooner a company conduct business there. Each company should obey the rules in which it is operating.Censoring is considered as denying human rights in many split of the world especially USA, but in China i t should be through with(p) in order to gain greater advantages for the whole nation. The problem here is because Google has basic ethical principle of Dont be Evil which contradict this kind of action. Moreover, it wont influence much to Chinese users whether Google stays there or not, as it has better local search engine Baidu. That is why, considering the condition and all the consequences, it is better for Google to leave China.Next, we can canvass this case based on Kantian perspective called Universalizability. It means that the companies have the duty to commit only those actions which could be universally applied. It can be demonstrated by the question What if every company agreed to self-censor in order to gain access to China? . The answer is there will be unbeatable suppression of rights of freedom of speech and information. On the antagonist question, the multinational corporations may influence the societal change and perhaps will improve the level of freedom of spe ech in China.