5 ms·

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo:

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and oppression of democracy is not a moral wrong. "Free speech" in the west means the Government shouldn't censor speech,this is a relativly new concept almost unheard of in history. It certainly isn't a human right. If a legitimate government of a country censors speech they're merely excercising their authority unless their laws restrict them from doing so as in the west. Whatever your view may be, a corporation does not get to decide social norms and what should be legal in any country.

gmanley 8y ago
What's moral or not isn't static. Plenty of people believe the suppression of speech is morally wrong. Your distinction between what is morally wrong and what is Socially unacceptable is unclear. Of course companies don't have the ability to directly change laws in sovereign countries but they can definitely influence them, just like people in mass can. Whether or not this will have any effect on China I lean towards absolutely not but at the very least some people at these companies don't want to help them.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  I should have clarified then,I meant morally wrong according to the the moral views of the person claiming wrong was done. If I argue Google is wrong for moral reasons then I need to argue as to why my standard of morality is accurate and applies to Google. For your second point,companies do influence policies but they have no right to force a policy. For example,Google can say "we're pulling out of country X because they don't have this policy" that's arm twisting and in disregard to the sovreignity of the country and its people. Google isn't irreplacable in China,Alibaba+tencent compete with them heavily anyways.
guelo 8y ago
> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- arthur_pryor 8y ago
  why downvote this comment? i'm not saying you have to agree with it, but this seems like as universally accepted an answer to "what are basic human rights?" as any that might be given (i'm assuming there is actually no universally agreeable definition, but this seems like one of the more respectable and frequently cited sources).
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters. Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations that we buy into because they're useful tools for structuring a society that isn't absolute chaos. As a result, citing a list that the UN formalized as some sort of factual evidence is, to me, on par with citing religious texts to promote their corresponding belief systems as "correct". That's not to say the list doesn't have value, only that it's open to debate and represents beliefs rather than facts.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.
      - longerthoughts 8y ago
        You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physical reality and you can’t point to a list as definitive proof of what is and is not moral.
JohnFen 8y ago
"corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country." True, but they do get to decide whether or not it's acceptable to do business in a country.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Yes,eithe they're in or out. They don't get to step in half way and twist arms.
ABCLAW 8y ago
I think you've taken the legal positivist philosophy (what's authorized by those who have authority is law, regardless of morality) and tried to indicate that the existence of said authorization overrides the moral and normative considerations of the actions in question (the law is good - a mere exercise of authority - and you don't get to complain). I think that's a bit of a naive stretch.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  Quite the opposite actually. No law overrides moral convictions of a person. But companies operate under the law. Where the objection is not moral legal authority must be observed and disregard for a nation's laws and customs is disregard and disrespect towards all of it's people. Where the objection is moral,if your moral worldview has an a moral authority suoerseding a nation state,that moral authority must be obeyed (for example,I have my God as an absolute moral authority with absolute authority over all things)
arthur_pryor 8y ago
> However, free speech and oppression of democracy is not a moral wrong. i and many others disagree with this statement. > "Free speech" in the west means the Government shouldn't censor speech,this is a relativly new concept almost unheard of in history. It certainly isn't a human right. If a legitimate government of a country censors speech they're merely excercising their authority unless their laws restrict them from doing so as in the west. Whatever your view may be, a corporation does not get to decide social norms and what should be legal in any country. why should the sovereignty of a national government supersede the inalienable rights of an individual? what makes a particular government "legitimate"? if a totalitarian government decided that ethnic cleansing against a minority population was the correct course of action for itself, and if it carried that out entirely within its borders, would you consider that to not be a moral wrong, because the nation was exercising its own sovereign power? i'm just trying to figure out how much sovereign government power justifies in your moral framework.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  A government is legitimate if it can excercise authority over its people and land. Sovreignity means even if others disagree with what a country is doing or with the way things are in a country,they have no authority to do anything about it by force. An individual may have their most basic rights violated, however everyone outside of that country lacks authority to help them. That's why countries keep militaries,to protect their sovreignity,not just borders and people. Sovreignity means they have the right to self-determination,the right to decide what they think is legal and what rights people can have and the people get to fight for what form of government they should have and how these rights and laws will be written and executed. Yes,ethnic cleasing is very wrong,however other countries lack the authority to interfere. They can however ooenly welcome and protect refugees and take diplomatic action that affect that government's relations with other governments.
yqx 8y ago
Your post introduces an imaginary issue. The question is not whether a company "gets to decide social norms", the question is whether a company gets to decide whether it agrees with terms set by a government that conflict with the social norms of the company. The the answer to that question certainly is positive.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  A comoany gets to decide whether or not they'll do business in a country after considering its laws and customs. If they decide to do business,they don't get to pick and choose which laws and customs they'll respect. Refusing to provide a particular good or service because of a local law or custom is just as bad as providing a good or service in violation of local laws and customs. Either you're in or you're out.
ngcc_hk 8y ago
Right is right. Socrates died for that. Not new. We fight for the other people right to speak even if we disagree so one day we are all free. And when idea’s time has come ... let us start earlier
- badrabbit 8y ago
  You can fight where you have a right to fight. You don't get to fight for what's allowed in someone else's house.
analog31 8y ago
>>> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. Who does? How were those people chosen?
- badrabbit 8y ago
  People and forces within the country. By peace,agreement and customs or by force and warring they get to fight for and decide what their government should be like and what rights and responsibilities their people will have.
int_19h 8y ago
> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. That is not the question at hand. If China or Iran want to implement censorship, Google can't stop them. The question is whether Google should help them. And since Google is not a Chinese or an Iranian corporation, but rather an American one, USA as a sovereign country - and, since it's a democratic republic, its citizens - absolutely gets to decide what's acceptable on its soil, for its citizens, and for its corporations.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral. American law does not define morality. Based on american law,no law is being broken by Google. If you're saying it's citizens get to decide morality,then which citizens? Is morality a matter of popularity? For example some might consider Google' core business practices thar involve stalking users immoral. On a different note most adults consider adultery and greed immoral but neither is illegal and you don't see people quitting companies because the company is too greedy.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral. The citizens get to decide both for themselves. Then they translate that to public policy in various ways - by voting for people who they expect to pass laws on what they consider illegal, and by e.g. boycotting companies that do what they consider immoral.

gmanley 8y ago

What's moral or not isn't static. Plenty of people believe the suppression of speech is morally wrong. Your distinction between what is morally wrong and what is Socially unacceptable is unclear. Of course companies don't have the ability to directly change laws in sovereign countries but they can definitely influence them, just like people in mass can. Whether or not this will have any effect on China I lean towards absolutely not but at the very least some people at these companies don't want to help them.

badrabbit 8y ago
I should have clarified then,I meant morally wrong according to the the moral views of the person claiming wrong was done. If I argue Google is wrong for moral reasons then I need to argue as to why my standard of morality is accurate and applies to Google. For your second point,companies do influence policies but they have no right to force a policy. For example,Google can say "we're pulling out of country X because they don't have this policy" that's arm twisting and in disregard to the sovreignity of the country and its people. Google isn't irreplacable in China,Alibaba+tencent compete with them heavily anyways.

guelo 8y ago

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

arthur_pryor 8y ago
why downvote this comment? i'm not saying you have to agree with it, but this seems like as universally accepted an answer to "what are basic human rights?" as any that might be given (i'm assuming there is actually no universally agreeable definition, but this seems like one of the more respectable and frequently cited sources).
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters. Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations that we buy into because they're useful tools for structuring a society that isn't absolute chaos. As a result, citing a list that the UN formalized as some sort of factual evidence is, to me, on par with citing religious texts to promote their corresponding belief systems as "correct". That's not to say the list doesn't have value, only that it's open to debate and represents beliefs rather than facts.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.
    - longerthoughts 8y ago
      You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physical reality and you can’t point to a list as definitive proof of what is and is not moral.

JohnFen 8y ago

"corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country." True, but they do get to decide whether or not it's acceptable to do business in a country.

badrabbit 8y ago
Yes,eithe they're in or out. They don't get to step in half way and twist arms.

ABCLAW 8y ago

I think you've taken the legal positivist philosophy (what's authorized by those who have authority is law, regardless of morality) and tried to indicate that the existence of said authorization overrides the moral and normative considerations of the actions in question (the law is good - a mere exercise of authority - and you don't get to complain). I think that's a bit of a naive stretch.

badrabbit 8y ago
Quite the opposite actually. No law overrides moral convictions of a person. But companies operate under the law. Where the objection is not moral legal authority must be observed and disregard for a nation's laws and customs is disregard and disrespect towards all of it's people. Where the objection is moral,if your moral worldview has an a moral authority suoerseding a nation state,that moral authority must be obeyed (for example,I have my God as an absolute moral authority with absolute authority over all things)

arthur_pryor 8y ago

> However, free speech and oppression of democracy is not a moral wrong. i and many others disagree with this statement. > "Free speech" in the west means the Government shouldn't censor speech,this is a relativly new concept almost unheard of in history. It certainly isn't a human right. If a legitimate government of a country censors speech they're merely excercising their authority unless their laws restrict them from doing so as in the west. Whatever your view may be, a corporation does not get to decide social norms and what should be legal in any country. why should the sovereignty of a national government supersede the inalienable rights of an individual? what makes a particular government "legitimate"? if a totalitarian government decided that ethnic cleansing against a minority population was the correct course of action for itself, and if it carried that out entirely within its borders, would you consider that to not be a moral wrong, because the nation was exercising its own sovereign power? i'm just trying to figure out how much sovereign government power justifies in your moral framework.

badrabbit 8y ago
A government is legitimate if it can excercise authority over its people and land. Sovreignity means even if others disagree with what a country is doing or with the way things are in a country,they have no authority to do anything about it by force. An individual may have their most basic rights violated, however everyone outside of that country lacks authority to help them. That's why countries keep militaries,to protect their sovreignity,not just borders and people. Sovreignity means they have the right to self-determination,the right to decide what they think is legal and what rights people can have and the people get to fight for what form of government they should have and how these rights and laws will be written and executed. Yes,ethnic cleasing is very wrong,however other countries lack the authority to interfere. They can however ooenly welcome and protect refugees and take diplomatic action that affect that government's relations with other governments.

yqx 8y ago

Your post introduces an imaginary issue. The question is not whether a company "gets to decide social norms", the question is whether a company gets to decide whether it agrees with terms set by a government that conflict with the social norms of the company. The the answer to that question certainly is positive.

badrabbit 8y ago
A comoany gets to decide whether or not they'll do business in a country after considering its laws and customs. If they decide to do business,they don't get to pick and choose which laws and customs they'll respect. Refusing to provide a particular good or service because of a local law or custom is just as bad as providing a good or service in violation of local laws and customs. Either you're in or you're out.

ngcc_hk 8y ago

Right is right. Socrates died for that. Not new. We fight for the other people right to speak even if we disagree so one day we are all free. And when idea’s time has come ... let us start earlier

badrabbit 8y ago
You can fight where you have a right to fight. You don't get to fight for what's allowed in someone else's house.

analog31 8y ago

>>> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. Who does? How were those people chosen?

badrabbit 8y ago
People and forces within the country. By peace,agreement and customs or by force and warring they get to fight for and decide what their government should be like and what rights and responsibilities their people will have.

int_19h 8y ago

> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. That is not the question at hand. If China or Iran want to implement censorship, Google can't stop them. The question is whether Google should help them. And since Google is not a Chinese or an Iranian corporation, but rather an American one, USA as a sovereign country - and, since it's a democratic republic, its citizens - absolutely gets to decide what's acceptable on its soil, for its citizens, and for its corporations.

badrabbit 8y ago
So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral. American law does not define morality. Based on american law,no law is being broken by Google. If you're saying it's citizens get to decide morality,then which citizens? Is morality a matter of popularity? For example some might consider Google' core business practices thar involve stalking users immoral. On a different note most adults consider adultery and greed immoral but neither is illegal and you don't see people quitting companies because the company is too greedy.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral. The citizens get to decide both for themselves. Then they translate that to public policy in various ways - by voting for people who they expect to pass laws on what they consider illegal, and by e.g. boycotting companies that do what they consider immoral.