Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Depends on the actual situation under King John. While the historical Robin Hood apparently "stole from the rich and gave to himself," I assume you're talking about the legend.

If the situation in England was as truly unfair and horrible as Disney and Mel Brooks would have us believe, then yes his actions were morally just. If the times WEREN'T as bad as that, andhe was just a man seeking to earn the love of the people by stealing from (at the time legally) rich noblemen, then he was a petty thief and attention seeker, nothing more.

Though historically, John DID levy unfair taxes, so I find the legendary Robin Hood's motives and actions quite sound. The real guy though is another story.

The ends do not justify the means.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The ends do not justify the means.

So robbing is never justifiable?

i much prefer iron monkey

Right, I have come to a decision, while stealing from the wealthy to help the poor may appear honorable and good, stealing is stealing, and a thief is a thief. Robbing the rich is wrong.

(I admit, I referred to Kant)

And what if those Rich robbed from the very poor to whom you're going to give said money?

It is still wrong, I did think of that upon reaching a conclusion.

Originally posted by Tangible God
And what if those Rich robbed from the very poor to whom you're going to give said money?

Then you are off topic

Originally posted by chithappens
So robbing is never justifiable?

The question is not one of justification but when does a wrong cease to be one? If circumstances dictate the morality of actions, than there is no such thing such as an "absolute" and things such as stealing, lying, and killing, are only "bad from the times". In concordance with this philosophy than in 20, 50, 1000 years these things will cease to be bad and adhered to as law.

However, if such actions are always bad (absolutes) and murder, bearing false witness, and thievery remain to be wrong, than regardless of the situation, the act is always wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas said, "the means do not justify the ends" after depleting all of the scenarios a good is sought from a bad...

You seem to be a Utilitarian AOR.

Personally I believe the means justify the end.. At least in a lot of cases and people should look at the bigger picture and just because of that Robin Hood should have stopped being an idiot.

Every time he would steal the people would suffer from it in one way or the other. He was not changing things, he just gave them a little food so the mean tax collector could take even more food, so he could give back just a little more. Now he surely wasn't an idiot in any of the story's so he must have realized that, and in that case he was just being ego centric and definitely not looking at the bigger picture, probably just doing what he did to satisfy his ego.

Now assuming he had a real chance to kill the sheriff of Nottingham and end the entire debacle then perhaps he would have done some good.

As for the real question that plays here, instead of just this situation.

Yes I do think it's okay to steal from thieves if it makes those they stole from profit. Just as long as you accept that you are breaking the law and if they catch you and punish you for it that's perfectly fine as well.

So really I'm quite neutral, whatever makes him happy I guess.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You seem to be a Utilitarian AOR.



If this is your opinion of Utilitarian, than I would be inclined to disagree

Originally posted by AOR
If this is your opinion of Utilitarian, than I would be inclined to disagree

There must be a section on the differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism.

Originally posted by The big EH
if the reason why the rich guy got the money is legit, then it would be wrong

What if it was legit, but still wrong? In the story of Robin Hood taxes were just raised to extreme levels in order to make the bastard richer. That would surely be legal...

Originally posted by Thundar
My opinion, no one on this earth really owns anything - they just think they do.

I agree. But people can be conditioned to think like they should, and people are usually too afraid to risk disagreeing with that.


In the language of capitalism where everything turns around money.... I think morality(in the way it is today) is very lucrative.

Originally posted by Fishy
What if it was legit, but still wrong? In the story of Robin Hood taxes were just raised to extreme levels in order to make the bastard richer. That would surely be legal... Legitimate in this case doesn't necessarily mean legal. Of course it was "legal". He was the King. But he asked for more taxes than his people had money. That is, as I think we all can agree, is impossible to pay. So as payment he would take everything the family owned. Sounds like stealing to me. Robin Hood just took it back.

Now most people will say two wrongs don't make a right but I think that would only apply if he was doing it for his own good. He obviously wasn't, giving all he stole to the poor and living the life of a felon on the run of the law.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There must be a section on the differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism.



I'm still inclined to disagree. Utilitarianism still questions the absolutism of a right or wrong action. I believe a good work is wholly right not because of the consequences that follow it, (because who can't mention a time when we did the right thing and were ridiculed and/or punished for it) or the good that was intended (four words " I didn't mean to...".

Originally posted by Marxman
Legitimate in this case doesn't necessarily mean legal. Of course it was "legal". He was the King. But he asked for more taxes than his people had money. That is, as I think we all can agree, is impossible to pay. So as payment he would take everything the family owned. Sounds like stealing to me. Robin Hood just took it back.

Now most people will say two wrongs don't make a right but I think that would only apply if he was doing it for his own good. He obviously wasn't, giving all he stole to the poor and living the life of a felon on the run of the law.
You should probably look the word "legitimate" up in a dictionary.