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 cou...