whoisgregg - 1:19 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

whoisgregg: Sometimes doing "no" evil isn't an option, and you have to be content with doing "less" evil. Reminds me of an Ayn Rand quote: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ryan Jensen

Show me a decision that doesn't have both positive and negative moral outcomes. Every choice, at some level, harms and benefits someone or something.

Every choice a search engine has with regards to China is somewhat "evil." If we pretend that each search engine makes the same decision (in a fantasy utopia where everyone makes the same moral choice), let's assess the outcomes:

1. Don't go in at all.
     Evil because China's people would lack access to powerful tools for locating information. Everyone back home gets to talk about their principles while the lack of access to information continues to stifle a billion people.
2. Go in, and ignore local law.
     China will kick them out, so that's the same as #1.
3. Go in and censor some results.
     Evil because it's censoring information that would be *very* important to every Chinese citizen. Long term, the dramatic increase in available knowledge will be Good. (Notice the capital "g.")

We know that each business will make different decisions, so that adds the moral complexity of factoring in survival to the equation.

Let's take the same view that Google took in the first place. It's better to be there and hopefully get the chance to work the system from inside than to stand and watch from outside.