Example research essay topic: Google To Censor Itself In China - 1,444 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Google to Censor Itself in China The story Google to Censor Itself in China revolves around decision of Chinese government to censor the results of Google Web search. In order to be able to launch Chinese version of its search engine, Googles management decided to deviate from its own principle of making information universally available. Basically, Google has agreed to report users IP addresses to the Chinese authorities, when the search key words are being matched with those, provided to Google by these authorities. At the same time, Google refused to monitor users activity, when being ordered by U. S. Justice Department.

This creates ethical and legal precedent. Also, it enables us to evaluate this story from the position of Rule Utilitarianism, as such that appears to be the most applicable, in this particular case. It is very symptomatic that the purely technological issues are now being thought of from the ethical prospective. This is because technology is always one step ahead of conventional morality and law, which is based on such morality. There is no doubt that the mentioned above story raises ethical question. This is because an ability to freely receive information is considered as one of the most basic human rights, by U.

N. Any attempt to limit the free flow of information, on the part of individual or governmental authority, is automatically considered to be the violation of human rights, and as such that cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Even though that the rapid development of computer technology makes some of our laws obsolete, the principle of individual freedom still remains as the most fundamental cornerstone, upon which the world democracies are being built. The government of U. S. promotes idea of democracy throughout the world, while forbidding the subjects of American law to cooperate with governmental authorities of totalitarian countries.

There is no doubt that China is a totalitarian country in its worst. It is estimated by U. S. government that there are 80. 000 of political prisoners being kept in Chinese jails, because of their political convictions. The Chinese Communist Party controls every aspect of Chinas political and cultural life. But now Chinese authorities want to extend its ideological grip over Internet.

And the American commercial company is willing to assist them. We will use Rule Utilitarianism to evaluate this story. This is because this theory is concerned about whether certain action can still be considered as beneficial to the people, after it becomes a law. Rule Utilitarianism not concerned about the immediate effects of any particular action. According to this theory, such effects cannot serve as foundation for the ethical imperative to be built upon. This is because the immediate effects of any action have the tendency to unpredictably reflect upon themselves in the future.

Every action has the potential of becoming a rule. But then, the rule itself becomes an independent variable, often resulting in situation when the initial cause and the probable consequences can hardly be related to each other. The Rule Utilitarianism can be used to evaluate this story because, even though that the immediate effects of allowing censorship might appear to be justifiable, it is doubtful that the practice of censorship might benefit people, when it becomes a rule. For example, the official reason for Chinese government to apply restrictions on Internet traffic is because it will help to reduce the spread of child pornography. Of course, nobody buys it. Even Google spokesmen had never mentioned it, when they were trying to explain why they decided to go ahead with introducing censorship.

Google frankly admits that their decision was being motivated by purely economic considerations: As an emerging economic powerhouse, China is developing rapidly, thanks in no small measure to the Internet. We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China (Google). It is a very alarming sign that the matter of informational freedom did not even play any significant role in the line of argument of whether Chinese authorities or Google officials. The Rule Utilitarianism explains why Googles decision to agree with Chinas demands can be considered as immoral. This is because it will result in creating a dichotomy between the immediate and gradual effects of applying censorship. The immediate beneficial effects are very few.

First of all, censorship will protect many children from being sexually exploited. Second of all, by being able to use Google search engine, Chinese people will still be able to broaden their intellectual horizons, even though that they will be having a limited access to the information. Now, let us analyze what kind of effects the introduction of censorship will have in the further prospective. One does not have to be a prophet to realize that it will create a legal precedent, when the governments of other countries will also try to limit the free flow of information on Internet, because the more people know the harder they can be brainwashed. Also, once the government was able to severely limit one of peoples essential rights, it will go after their other rights, as well.

Thus, the introduction of censorship on Internet can be considered as only the beginning. When we take this thought to its logical conclusion, then it will become clear that the censoring Internet will ultimately result in censoring all other aspects of peoples lives, for the sake of their own safety. This, of course, has nothing to do with the idea of freedom, for which our predecessors shed blood in many wars. And finally - knowing that Internet is being monitored, people will try to find other ways to obtain uncensored information. This will lead to the decline of Internet, as informational technology, which in its turn; will result in termination of millions of jobs.

Thus, we came to conclusion that the positive effects of introducing censorship on Internet will have a local effect, while the negative consequences will be truly universal, because everybody on Earth is going to be affected by them. Therefore, monitoring Internet should be considered as morally wrong. Rule Utilitarianism leaves no doubt about it. Our moral position, in the case of Google betraying its own principles of operation, is going to be defined by what we consider as ethical and unethical, according to Rule Utilitarianism. It is because of Western culture being always associated with the freedom of thought that enabled technological and cultural progress. It is impossible to provide security to everybody, but it is possible to destroy freedom, by pushing hard for additional laws that insure security.

But there can be no security, when there is no freedom. As famous saying goes: People, who are willing to sacrifice freedom for the sake of security, deserve neither freedom nor security. The moral obligation, which derives from the position of Rule Utilitarianism, in this case, would be to speak out against censorship publicly. Google is based in America; therefore, it is the subject of American law.

If Google will not adjust its operating policies, in accordance to the American standards, than it would become a moral obligation for anyone to stop using Googles search engine. If this does not help, than the more radical methods can be applied. Our laws are based on the notion of freedom. If freedom becomes unlawful, then we cannot think of the law in terms of lawfulness. According to Rule Utilitarianism, it appears that both Chinese government and Googles top officials can be considered as blameworthy party.

Each of them pursues its own secular agenda, without considering the gradual consequences of their actions. It is understandable with the case of Chinese government. But when the very same people, who are supposed to be protecting the free flow of information, talk about benefits of censorship, it becomes the matter of public concern. Also, we can blame ourselves as well. If Googles officials knew that their decision to bend to the Chinese demands would result in public protests at home, then that they would have thought about it twice. The freedom is an absolute measure of happiness, and as such, it cannot be undermined.

Technology is information, information is freedom, because it empowers individual by providing him with the choice of action. It is information that stands on the way of thermodynamic entropy. Information is the essence of life, because it can only exist in highly organized form. Therefore, any attempt to suppress information cannot be tolerated. Bibliography: Google to Censor Itself in China.

January 26, 2006. CNN. Com. December 12, 2006. web Oswald, Ed Google to Officially Expand into China. May 11, 2005.

Beta News. Com. 12, 2006. web

Research essay sample on Google To Censor Itself In China