The paper 'Moral Universalism and Moral Relativism, Google in China" is a good example of a management case study. Moral universalism is the position that some system of ethics is applicable to all people despite color, race, culture, religion and nationality, must possess a plurality over which it is ranged-a plurality diverse persons, jurisdictions, nations, or localities on which morality proves an authority that is universal. The quests for principles that are universally valid relating to morality are sharply challenged by diversity. According to Deresky (2008), moral universalism traditionally blends an answer to the metaphysical question or scientific “ what? ” query with a response to the political “ who” query.
Universalism assumes that the trait discovery shared by all human beings comes up to show why, and sometimes how, all human beings should be organized into a cosmopolis. It proposes a metaphysical or scientific foundation for politics globally. Following the conformity to the religious that human beings are formed in the image of God, philosophical universalism has claimed that the presence of common traits testifies to a purpose which is common.
It stipulates that the form of human community that what is ideal can be decided by a human nature that is universal (Capps, Lynch & Massey, 2008). According to Ryan (2003), it has been proposed that the constitution authors of the United States of America had no entitlement to describe themselves using the pronoun “ we” in referring to themselves as the people of united states of America. They were entitled to refer to themselves as “ we” and refer themselves as representatives of white male owners of property of the United States of America.
The presence of a community which is moral can plausibly and devoid of qualification recognize itself as “ we” in referring themselves as people of the United States of America. A universal ethic is a moral system that is applicable to all humanity universally. Moral universalism provides a world that will have no disagreement in morality owing to the fact that everyone thinks in the same way universally and care about morals generally. Moral standards are not expected to differ from one individual to another and there is no chance for bias or opinions (Deresky, 2008). Many religions comprising of Islam and Christianity possess moral positions that are universal, and have their position of morality having set by a deity, and consequently universal, absolute, unchangeable, and perfect.
Moral universalism revolves around the principle that the moral evaluation of people and their conduct, of state of affairs and social rules, must be subjected to fundamental principles that do not, covertly or explicitly, discriminate against particular groups or persons arbitrary. The general idea is explicated in three conditions terms. It is consequently applied to the discrepancy between an individual’ s criteria of global and national economic justice. Moral relativism Moral relativism, on the other hand, refers to the philosophical position that states that morality is relative and moreover people should try to be good conforming to their own consciences.
It is a contrast to moral objectivism. Moral relativism supposes that moral principles have no objective standards consequently there are no fast and hard rules on what is wrong and right, on which are founded and should be fought for. Relativism refers to different opinions, absence of a single authority and presence as many truths as there are or cultures or societies putting forward as many ways as possible of doing things differently.
It seems to embrace the slogan that beauty lies in the hands of the beholder. In this perspective, one man’ s meat is another man’ s poison. In this regard whatever is good in America will not necessarily be good in the Republic of China (Ryan, 2003).
Deresky, H. (2008), Case 2: Google in China: The Big Disconnect’, International Management: Managing across borders and cultures, Text and Cases (6th ed.), New Jersey: Pearson Education, pp. 71-79.
Capps, D., M.P. Lynch and D. Massey, 2008, “A Coherent Moral Relativism,” Synthese, 151: 1– 26
American Anthropological Association Executive Board, 2007, “Statement on Human Rights,” American Anthropologist, 49: 539–43
Benbaji, Y. and M. Fisch, 2004, “Through Thick and Thin: A New Defense of Cultural Relativism,” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 42: 1–24.
Graham, G., 2006, “Tolerance, Pluralism, and Relativism,” in D. Heyd (ed.) Toleration: An Elusive Virtue, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 44–59
Ryan, J.A., 2003, “Moral Relativism and the Argument from Disagreement,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 34: 377–86.
Miller, C.B., 2002, “Rorty and Moral Relativism,” European Journal of Philosophy, 10: 354–74
Levy, N., 2003, “Descriptive Relativism: Assessing the Evidence,” The Journal of Value Inquiry, 37: 165–77
Kirchin, S., 2000, “Quasi-Realism, Sensibility Theory, and Ethical Relativism,” Inquiry, 43: 413–28.
Bloomfield, P., 2003, “Is There a Moral High Ground?,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 41: 511–26