Originally Posted by anonymouse
You really have a warped sense of morality if you think it comes down to some, 'general guidelines' or a 'standard document'? That's an absurd idea of morality.
Clearly you misread my intent. Of course there is no book of general guidelines. What you're doing is trying to force what you believe to be moral/immoral onto the rest of us. And saying "shame on you, you evil heathans" if you don't share my views. That was my point.
At its very basis moral behavior encompasses the concept of not causing harm to others, and I would extend that to the more active concept of extending help to others when they are in need and you are able. Choosing a course of action that benefits oneself, but causes harm to others as a consequence is unethical.
Again, I point to the example I stated in my post. If you were stuck with the decision of killing another person in order to save thousands of others because their bodies contains a cure to a bacteria infection, which one's the ethical choice? According to you, killing the person is unethical, so you have to spare him to be ethical. But then the other thousands will die, so makes you unethical. If you kill him, you save the other thousands, but in an act of being ethical to the thousands, you do something that's unethical to the single one. The lines aren't so clear are they?
Whether one causes harm is not generally that subjective a concept in practice,
See my example above. It clearly can be subjective.
and Google's selling out of net neutrality for its business purposes clearly crosses that line, as does directly supporting Google in its efforts to subvert net neutrality. If supporting Google in other areas helps them indirectly, or emboldens them in their efforts to, undermine net neutrality, and I think it does, then that also is unethical behavior.
What line? The one you decided? Seems like extreme, Jetz, and myself disagree with you. By definition, that makes ethics here subjective.
There is no real ethical dilemma here for Google. By siding with Verizon, they are throwing net neutrality under the bus and causing harm to millions. They are not in any way preserving net neutrality by abandoning it, nor are they in any way mitigating the damage to it by making their pact with Verizon. It's a gutting, pure and simple. It's the abandonment of everything Google said they stood for for years. It's a betrayal of everyone who supported them because they said they supported net neutrality. Their ethical course, which might hinder their business aspirations, but would minimize the harm they cause, would be to stand by the principles they espoused.
And you know this to be complete fact based on what hard evidence? All I see are your own opinions.