Robin Hood

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

Originally quoted from wikipedia
For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when it is followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action.

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.

Originally posted by Storm
Were Robin Hood’ s actions morally right? What would our views be on a modern day Robin Hood?

In the modern world I would support his arrest 😬

I can see what he was trying to do but vigilantism is dangerous. Frankly as far as I'm concerned armed robbery is armed robbery no matter what your reasons are.