Last Minute Clinton Pardon Ethical? Enter one President and one fugitive from justice. In 1983 Marc Rich was charged with illegally buying oil from Iran while it was under a trade embargo. He was thought to have been trying to avoid oil price controls, evading nearly $50 million in federal taxes. After fleeing to Switzerland he was placed on the America's Ten Most Wanted List. 17 years later in the last hours of the Clinton presidency, Marc Rich was given a pardon, allowing him the freedom to return to the United States without prosecution.
Red flags have been raised in Washington. Why was Rich given a presidential pardon? Did someone buy it? Fingers are being pointed toward Denise Rich, long time friend of the Clinton's and Marc Rich's ex-wife. Mrs. Rich has given lavishly to the Democratic Party, raised funds for the President and Senator Clinton, and contributed to the legal defense fund.
Mrs. Rich's two daughters and Son-in law have also made donations to the Democratic Party. Let us examine The President's actions against the major ethical theologies.
Egoism would suggest that when faced with a decision, one should act in such a way that would promote their best interests. Supposing that he would not face prosecution, giving Mr. Rich the pardon would be within the president's best interest financially IF he was paid for the pardon, or if he was going to loose a major contributor.
Hedonism would probably not recommend the course of action he took. Hedonists are concerned with the production of pleasure. Specifically, producing pleasure that frees man from pain and mental agitation. I think facing indictment would be extremely mentally agitating.
According to utilitarianism, one should choose the path that will bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people. What good is it to pardon a person who illegally avoided paying $50 million dollars in federal taxes? Money that could have gone to better the country"ÃÂ¦..
Divine Command theory. One would tend to think that he acted biblically in the sense that he exercised mercy and forgiveness to one's enemies. But it is hard to tell what the will of God would be in a situation such as this. Kant says that one should make an informed choice about what the moral thing is, but also know that what you choose to be moral for you should also be moral for everyone. So, would it be a good idea for the president to pardon everyone that could afford to contribute lots of money to their party? Would that make this country a fair and just place to live? Well, I don't think that choosing an action to gain finances for political endeavors would be something that Bhudda would think is very RIGHT. Cease to do evil, learn to do good, and purify your mind don't seem to be words that he took to heart when deciding to pardon a man on the 10 most wanted list.
Nicomachean Ethics: Not only use reason but use it well. Without knowing the exact situation and all the facts one cannot judge how well a man reasoned when making a choice.
Ethics are very subjective; who can say one action is "the moral"ÃÂ one? How can one man judge another's ethical standards? Why must we be left to ponder such things?