This paper applies utilitarian ethical theory to evaluate Google's controversial decision to launch a censored Chinese search engine, Google.cn, in compliance with Chinese Communist Party regulations. Using John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism — including its negative formulation — the paper argues that accepting censorship represented the lesser evil compared to offering Chinese users no service at all. The analysis addresses Google's core credo of providing impartial information, the realities of China's totalitarian internet policies, and the company's efforts to protect user privacy by hosting Gmail and Blogspot servers outside China. Two major objections — discriminatory treatment of users and complicity in human rights violations — are raised and addressed.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
Censorship and ethics, viewed through a utilitarian lens, suggest that making a compromise regarding one's core principles may represent an ethical action when circumstances allow for no other course. This paper uses utilitarianism as an ethical framework to defend this thesis, drawing on a concrete business case as its central example.
The case under discussion refers to Google's decision to open a headquarters in China and to operate Google.cn in accordance with Chinese regulations — rules quite different from the standards this company ordinarily upholds. Once Google chose to enter China and establish a local search engine there, it agreed to comply with Chinese Communist laws that imposed censorship on search results. Nevertheless, the company maintained its uncensored English-language version, Google.com, in parallel. In this way, Google allowed users the freedom to choose the most suitable search engine while obeying local laws and continuing to do business. (Martin, 3)
China is a totalitarian regime in which numerous abuses occur, particularly against individuals and movements advocating for freedom. Censorship is one of the tactics used to maintain that regime; it is, however, neither Google's business nor its duty to change the political situation in other countries.
Initially, Google operated only its dot-com version in China, but Chinese authorities ensured it functioned poorly. Google pages took an inordinately long time to load, which frustrated users and drove them toward domestic Chinese search engines. Google subsequently acquired a stake in one such Chinese company and was faced with a critical decision: either abandon the Chinese market entirely or continue doing business while accepting local regulations on censorship. (Martin, 4)
China's internet policy is notably severe. Because the internet represents a vehicle for freedom, and China is a totalitarian state, a hostile response to it was entirely predictable. The measures taken are extensive: approximately 30,000 internet police agents are deployed, routers are positioned at the edge of the domestic internet infrastructure, and citizens are regularly exposed to cautionary stories about individuals — particularly journalists and writers — who acted against the regime. The criteria for censorship are not clearly defined and change frequently. (Martin, 7)
Google is one of the most successful companies in the world. Its global success is rooted in a credo built on satisfying the customer as fully as possible by providing genuine, unfiltered information. Google's page-ranking system is produced through an extraordinarily complex mechanism incorporating a vast number of indicators and data points. (Martin, 2)
Although many businesses have attempted to purchase favorable placement in Google's search results, the company has consistently refused. Sponsored links appear in a clearly designated section, making it transparent that their placement was paid for. Google has also developed techniques to filter out websites that employ search-engine optimization strategies but offer little genuine relevance to users' interests. (Martin, 2)
Given this ethos — providing the most impartial information available — the company faced two alternatives in China. The first was to create Google.cn, which complied with local censorship laws but included a notice on every results page informing users that the information had been filtered in accordance with local regulations. The second alternative was to provide Chinese users with no service whatsoever.
Taking the company's credo into account, the decision to launch Google.cn was an ethical one, for two reasons. First, the lesser of two evils was chosen. Second, all parties involved derived some benefit: the company gained access to a new market, and Chinese users gained access to a high-quality online search engine.
The ethical theory applied here as a supporting framework is utilitarianism. According to this theory, it is the utility — or usefulness — of an action that determines its moral value. The moral dimension of an act lies in its consequences: if people benefit from an action, that action is to be considered a moral one. The benefit in question refers to the action's capacity to produce happiness. Happiness and suffering are the central coordinates in this moral calculus. (Mill, 15)
A further dimension of this framework is negative utilitarianism, which holds that one should choose the least harmful available action, or act in a way that prevents suffering. (Mill, 20) This formulation is particularly relevant to the Google case, where the choice was not between a good and a bad outcome, but between two imperfect outcomes.
Analyzing the situation through a utilitarian lens, Google's decision was a moral one because it provided users with a benefit that contributed to their well-being. Ideally, Google would have offered Chinese users the same uncensored service available everywhere else in the world. Given Chinese law, however, and the fact that the only real alternative was to offer no service at all, it is clear that the least harmful option was chosen.
From the perspective of negative utilitarianism, the evaluation is equally positive. The greatest harm would have been to leave Chinese users with no means of professional online research. By creating a Chinese-language version — albeit a censored one — Google avoided that harm. Its choice was therefore a moral one.
It should also be noted that Google did everything within its power to offer Chinese users a service as close as possible to that available in other countries. To prevent political authorities from interfering with personal communications through censorship, Google kept the servers for Gmail and Blogspot outside China. (Martin, 6) This measure protected two important channels of communication and self-expression, even though users still needed to register their personal information locally and thus remained subject to a degree of government oversight. The company clearly acted to honor its credo to the fullest extent circumstances permitted.
"Discrimination and human rights objections raised and refuted"
To sum up, a compromise regarding one's credo may represent an ethical action when the circumstances allow for no other development of the situation. Censorship may be considered a violation of the human right to self-expression and information, but when the circumstances allow for no other option, it may be stated that those performing this act are doing a moral thing — provided the action still respects their core principles and serves the benefit of the people affected. Google's actions in China stand as a concrete illustration of this principle.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.