Robin Hood: Stealing from the rich and giving away to the poor
In philosophy, we often question what is ethical, what is moral, what is right and what is wrong based on several philosopher’s views. In this paper, I will examine the actions of Robin Hood through philosophical lenses, giving my opinion in regards which theory best judges and describes the effects of this significant figure. Robin Hood was an archer in a tale in the English folklore, who stole from the rich and gave money to the poor. Robin Hood is often a theme of discussion amongst scholars and other individuals interested in moral, ethics and philosophy since it raises several points that can be evaluated in regards judging if his actions were justifiable for the greater good. To evaluate Robin Hood through philosophical lenses, we can use utilitarian concepts to understand the logics of his actions. First, utilitarianism states that a person’s actions should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, a guiding principle for conduct (Downie, 1976). Keeping in mind the utilitarian principles, we can further analyze the actions of Robin Hood and determined if they were justifiable through this theory’s philosophical lenses. Stealing from one wealthy person and distributing that wealth can give happiness
…show more content…
His actions of killing those who tried to attack the poor might go against several ethical principles. However, he was doing so to protect several people. In the utilitarian lenses, it seems that the principle of the conduct of Robin Hood follows the rule of happiness, which is to shape your actions in a way that brings happiness to the greatest amount of people. Robin Hood was also considered by the population as a hero, a savior of the people. Thus, it seems as Robin Hood fits the criteria of utilitarian actions as to bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of
Ross, William D.. "What Makes Right Acts Right?" The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. 753-760. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Readings – Ethics. University of Alberta eClass.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
Over the years, the legend of Robin Hood has endured great change. Through each generation, the story acquired new characters, tales, expanded themes, and some fresh historical contexts to adapt to the interests of the audience. The legend collected many fragments of other stories as time went on. Also as time passed, the character of Robin Hood underwent many changes. Originally, Robin Hood was portrayed as a yeoman, then transformed into a mistreated nobleman, later turned into an Englishman protesting the domination of the Normans, and finally, through modern adaptation he has came to be known as a social rebel who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. There is no way to ensure that a certain historical figure was in fact the basis for Robin Hood, however there exists many possible candidates. In order to find a possible identity that fits the persona of Robin Hood, one must look at the earliest works of literature that mention his name.
The legend of Robin Hood includes a group of so called outlaws, and how they go about fighting and cooperating with the others in their land. Along with the death of his father, Robin left his home after it was burned down to go and live in the woods. There, he assembled an army of loyal men to help him fight against unjust laws and actions in return for shelter, food, and camaraderie. Although considered outlaws, Robin Hood and his men clearly show actions of the Knightly Code, such as: defending the weak and helpless, fighting only in just causes, and dealing honorably with opponents in battle.
Another example of this, is the story of Robin Hood. Robin Hood tells the tale of a man that steals from the rich and gives on to the poor. In this case, utilitarians would find nothing wrong with this man stealing money from people, because we don’t give actions their own morality, only thing that makes an action good or bad is the consequences that proceed them. So, this is morally acceptable based on that standard because the consequences are relatively good because the greatest amount of happiness is being promoted to the greatest number of people. Stealing from one person to feed a whole village or maybe even two is the right thing to do morally, no matter the means in which he achieved
Response: Good question. Robin and the Merrymen's mission had started out as a personal vendetta against the Sheriff. It seems to me that in order for him to achieve that goal he must embrace a larger goal. This isn't all that unusual. We come across this all the time in business. A private inventor develops a new product that's really good. He starts a company and owns 100% of it. He does this to maintain control.
There are several issues Robin Hood needs to consider. First, Robin Hood needs to make sure his own personal grievances against the Sheriff do not cloud his vision and what is in the best interest of his Merrymen as a group. Second, take a broad look at the overall organizational structure by conducting an environmental scan, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis and/or using a variety of organizational assessments (measurements). A SWOT analysis will help determine some strategic alternatives and how the band can attempt to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals. Robin Hood can use the SWOT analysis to identify where he is strong and vulnerable, where he should defend and attack by scanning both internal and external environments (McNamara, Performance Management, 1999).
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men had a successful first year. With new recruits pouring in from the furthest outreaches of England, Robin had met his objective of strengthening in number. Although he was satisfied with the size of the organization, he has realized necessary preparations had not been made to accommodate the now over abundance of members of his organization. Many challenges now face Robin such as a lack of provisions and lack of funds to support the band, but he cannot lose focus of their original foundation of "Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor". In addition they have to stay focused on their long term goal to remove Prince John from power by freeing King Richard from his imprisonment in Austria. Robin Hood has to form structure within his organization so that it can continue to grow and prosper.
"The Story of Robin Hood." The Story of Robin Hood. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. .
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
Now with both of these normative ethical theories in mind, what will be presented in this paper is how does this portray to the movie, The Dark Knight. So before watching this movie, it has been decided that a thesis statement must be created. The thesis will be that the Dark Knight also known as Batman is a Utilitarian hero. Not seeing this movie before, it is unaware of what ethical theory category the Dark Knight will fall under. Therefore it will be a surprise either way with what kind of results that will be