Apple and Cooperation

      Recently, I read of allegations made by a Chinese human-rights activist that quite a few Apple Computer factories in China have been conducting pregnancy testing on employees to assist the Chinese government in enforcing the one-child policy. Members of my family have iPhones, and I had been considering one. Now, I plan to wait on the idea until I see how Apple handles this allegation, and what steps it takes (if any) to halt the practice, or even pull out of China. I do not have much faith that the company will do anything, or that it cares - apparently, it ordered that such practices be stopped in 2006, but they were continuing as of 2012.

      The question naturally arises, it seems to me, as to what is to be done if one is an individual considering buying an Apple product? Fortunately, while the moral judgment may be difficult, at the subjective level, moral philosophy provides some considerations when one is faced with a decision such as "May I buy an iPhone, and if I do, how deeply am I implicated (if at all) in the decisions made by Apple in regards to pregnancy testing?"

      I start with the question of abortion and specifically, forced abortion. I believe that abortion - the deliberate, targeted, taking of an innocent human life - is intrinsically evil. While this may be difficult even for some conservatives and libertarians, I would ask whether you consider the question of forced abortion, against a woman's will, an intrinsic evil as I do. I would hope that very few readers of this blog would dispute that forced abortion is an intrinsic evil. Therefore, I proceed with the assumption that forced abortion is an intrinsic evil, in one, if not more than one, way.

      First, I start with the question of Apple itself. Let us say that Apple is at least ignoring (if not knowingly co-operating in) the process of forced abortions, via assisting or allowing testing. This is an open question at the moment, but taking it as a hypothetical, this would mean that Apple is acting as an agent that assists in the Chinese government in forcing women to have abortions. Using the language of causation and cooperation, this means that Apple is "formally cooperating" in forced abortion. To borrow from a bioethicist:

Formal cooperation is a willing participation on the part of the cooperative agent in the sinful act of the principal agent. This formal cooperation can either be explicit (''Yes, I'm happy to drive the getaway car because I want to be an accomplice'') or implicit. ''Implicit formal cooperation is attributed when, even though the cooperator denies intending the wrongdoer's object, no other explanation can distinguish the cooperator's object from the wrongdoer's object'' - National Catholics Bioethics Center, Formal and Material Cooperation, Ethics & Medics, June 1995 (reprinted here).

(I realize here that there a distinction ought to be made between "sinful" act and "evil" act, but I believe that the language in use provides a general framework for individual consideration, and that the distinction is unimportant when the individual in question is considering whether to purchase an Apple product or not.)

      However, if one is purchasing an Apple product, which for the purposes of this hypothetical, is made in China, and one has no way of knowing whether the factory in question is one engaging in assisting with pregnancy testing, one may be engaged in a species of cooperation. This may be what is called mediate material cooperation, which has been defined as:

[C]oncurring in the sinful act of another but not in such a way that one actually places the act with the other or concurs in the evil intention of the other but by doing something which is good or indifferent in itself, that action supplies an occasion of sin to another or supplies assistance, means or preparation. Fr. Edward J. Richard, Principles of Cooperation.

      Now, it is evident that the immediate purchase of (for instance) an iPhone, all other things being equal, is a neutral act - if the immediate purpose is benign (to be able to communicate via cell phone), the act itself takes on no immediate moral implications. However, under principles of mediate material cooperation, if one approaches the purchase with the awareness that the purchase will provide some means for the company in question to continue operating factories in China, then one is faced with the question of the principle of double effect as to whether one may consummate the purchase.

      That principle is debated hotly in philosopy, but versions of it state that one may perform an act that has a known evil side effect, but only if:

(version 1 - Wikipedia, citing T. A. Cavanaugh, Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil, p.36, Oxford: Clarendon Press)

1. That the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. That the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. That the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

or

(version 2 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Doctrine of Double Effect)

1. That the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. That the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. That the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect

      As noted above, the action of purchasing an iPhone is good, for most purposes, in and of itself, or at least indifferent (provided that one is not purchasing the device because one wishes to assist in getting more forced abortions in China). Presumably, therefore, the good effect is the intended one. So far, so good. However, the third and forth criteria above produce difficulties. The good effect, that of purchasing and communicating on an iPhone, is assisted in some measure both during the production of the device and by the money paid for the device. Finally, I am not sure that there is any proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect in general. If there were no other means of communication (which, in this case, there are plenty of competitors for Apple products that may not have the same production problems), or one were required to have an iPhone to maintain one's job (and thus provide for one's family), then one might have a grave reason. However, for many, and especially in the case of other Apple products which are not necessities in any sense, the possibility of material cooperation in evil is great.

      I do not deal with here the question of whether one currently using an Apple product, who purchased it before being aware of Apple's potential cooperation with forced abortion, may continue to do so. I suspect the answer is "yes", but that is without performing a similar analysis on that question. With that said, those of us who find this argument compelling should both avoid purchasing Apple products and discuss the matter among others whom we know, so that perhaps even Apple will take notice and other good will result.