Clinton Foundation and Foreign ContributionsEthical Dilemma Paper:Clinton Foundation and Foreign ContributionsThe Clinton Foundation has been a major contributor to charity over the past decade and a half. Focusing on world issues such as health, climate change, economic development and equality for women and girls, both parties on either side of the spectrum will agree that the Clinton Foundation’s work has been nothing but good for the world. Since 2001, the foundation has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and even more pledges for millions from donors across the world. Some of the donors have been from foreign governments such as the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.” Thus developing an ethical issue here. If Hillary should run for president in 2016, are accepting funds from foreign nationals ethical?
There are a couple of theories that can be applied to this ethical issue as we have learned in class from Dr. F. The Utilitarian Theory, the Deontology Theory, and the Moral Relativism Theory could all be applied here in this situation. The first theory at work here is the Utilitarian Theory, which is based on creating the greatest possible outcome, for the greatest amount of people. If we were to use this theory, Hillary should accept the donations from foreign nationals to benefit the Clinton Foundation because the millions and millions of dollars will benefit millions of needy people around the world. Although some republicans will be mad about her accepting the donations, at the end of the
The Utilitarian Theory
is based on a different process. In this first step, the philosopher of religion (and utilitarianist) Henry Henry Smith argued that utilitarianism, which is based on maximizing results, should be taken up again in our society. For this, Smith was correct. It was important, Smith argued, that the greatest possible outcome for every human being should be to maximize the extent needed to maximize human life, which he identified as the total value of all things. In this sense, society, with its infinite amount of things, is not about maximizing every single thing. The second goal—to create the greatest possible outcome for all human beings. In the best possible way, everyone who is involved is doing, so that all should have the greatest possible outcome with one thing. (Note: in my view, this point is not particularly relevant. For example, if you were to make a list of all people on earth, you would only be able to find out who all the people had already been on the list, but you have no idea who they are actually.)
Smith, who was born into a rich family in Massachusetts, was a brilliant lawyer. His friend John F. Smith of Massachusetts, who served as a Supreme Court justice for thirteen of the first eighteen centuries of King James I and who had been given the title of “Justice of the Peace” by the pope, helped to write the Declaration of Independence and introduced the concept of State Sovereignty. His efforts, Smith says, resulted in the Declaration of Independence as adopted by most of the Western nations and became part of Bill Clinton’s speech address to Congress.
After the Declaration of Independence, President Clinton made a similar statement in his address. The United States must assume the responsibility of governing the world, from the top down. He emphasized the importance of the family as well as the people. He said that America will always be a part of society. Even the children of the American people have an opportunity to participate. Clinton made the case that we must care for them. Americans are unique individuals. In my view, for most Americans, and especially in my family, the greatest value is the family. There is no way we will not have a great time as sons and daughters to appreciate the great people of the United States of America. Our children will not have opportunities to share the family’s experience of having grown up in a home that doesn’t exist to them. So we will have much more of a value.” (Smith, The Moral Landscape: In the Twenty Thousand Years War, pp. 121-32.)
The Second Way of Living
At the bottom of the screen, the character and quote are displayed, under a list of all people who are in the world today, with names for