Robin Hood: Good Guy or Bad Guy?

[Verve]

So, what do you think, good guy or bad guy?

On one hand, he was stealing from the government.
On the other he was using that money for the poor, overtaxed and suffering.

 

[Paradoxum]

Good guy. Steal from the greedy to give to the needy. He was stealing from the rich, not the government, wasn't he? That money wasn't being put into programs for the betterment for society.

 

[dies-l]

Sympathetic villain, but still a villain. The ends rarely, if ever, justifies the means.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good guy. Steal from the greedy to give to the needy. He was stealing from the rich, not the government, wasn't he? That money wasn't being put into programs for the betterment for society.

I am going to throw up.

He was good because he was returning money stolen from the common man and woman (i.e. taxes) from taxes that were egregiously high, not because he was stealing from the rich like some crook or redistributionist politician (but I repeat myself).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is awesome. But as a christian I know stealing is wrong so therefor hes bad.

 

[Paradoxum]

I am going to throw up.

He was good because he was returning money stolen from the common man and woman (i.e. taxes) from taxes that were egregiously high, not because he was stealing from the rich like some crook or redistributionist politician (but I repeat myself).


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what I meant. Though redistribution can be right.

Sympathetic villain, but still a villain. The ends rarely, if ever, justifies the means.

Why do the means need justifying? Stealing from thieves to give back to the rightful owners it a good thing. 'Stealing' shouldn't be rejected just because it is normally a bad word.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is awesome. But as a christian I know stealing is wrong so therefor hes bad.

Or maybe 'stealing is bad' is too simplistic? It works in most normal cases, but the problem is thinking some simplistic rule can apply to all circumstances. In this case it is totally reasonable to take back what is rightly yours (or for others, if they don't have the skill to).

 

[wmpratt]

That is what I meant. Though redistribution can be right.



Why do the means need justifying? Stealing from thieves to give back to the rightful owners it a good thing. 'Stealing' shouldn't be rejected just because it is normally a bad word.



Or maybe 'stealing is bad' is too simplistic? It works in most normal cases, but the problem is thinking some simplistic rule can apply to all circumstances. In this case it is totally reasonable to take back what is rightly yours (or for others, if they don't have the skill to).

Your conclusions are subjective. Robin Hood took what was not his and allegedly gave to those it may not have come from. Did he verify what loss the beneficiaries had to the government or "rich"? And who appointed him judge, jury and executioner?

Besides I don't believe any wealth went to any "poor" except maybe Hood's very own "merry Men".

 

[mzungu]

Considering that the rich are the biggest tax evaders then suffice it to say had Robin Hood been alive today he would be shouting "No Pasaran" and "A Las Barricadas"! I for one believe that stealing from the rich who steal from the poor is a justifiable system of survival of the weakest!

 

[wmpratt]

Considering that the rich are the biggest tax evaders then suffice it to say had Robin Hood to be alive today he would be shouting "No Pasaran" and "A Las Barricadas"! I for one believe that stealing from the rich who steal from the poor is a justifiable system of survival of the weakest!

If in fact anything WAS stolen.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

So, what do you think, good guy or bad guy?

On one hand, he was stealing from the government.
On the other he was using that money for the poor, overtaxed and suffering.

Ol' Robin was a big Thief ... and just because his stolen assets went to the poor (or at least we are told...) , that never makes it ok to be a Thief. We are to render unto the Government which is the Governments and unto God which is Gods ...so... its actually a God-thing to give to the Government . Its never a God-thing to pillage from the Government ; besides....our Government today doesnt like any competition when it comes to thievry ! .... lol...

 

[Paradoxum]

I wonder if people would have as many problems with Robin Hood if what he did was described in different words: eg: Recovering from the greedy the rightful property of the poor.

Your conclusions are subjective. Robin Hood took what was not his and allegedly gave to those it may not have come from. Did he verify what loss the beneficiaries had to the government or "rich"? And who appointed him judge, jury and executioner?

Besides I don't believe any wealth went to any "poor" except maybe Hood's very own "merry Men".

What do you mean by conclusions are subjective? You don't believe in objective morality?

How would he check how much each person lost? He took from those who took the money by force in the first place, then gave it to the needy. What is wrong with that?

No one appointed him, but then no one really appointed anyone back then. It's not as if they lived in a relatively just democratic state. It is about self-defence, and the defend of others from the greedy.

I don't know if Robin Hood even existed, so it only matter what the story says about who he gave it to.

Ol' Robin was a big Thief ... and just because his stolen assets went to the poor (or at least we are told...) , that never makes it ok to be a Thief. We are to render unto the Government which is the Governments and unto God which is Gods ...so... its actually a God-thing to give to the Government . Its never a God-thing to pillage from the Government ; besides....our Government today doesnt like any competition when it comes to thievry ! .... lol...

Why is theft wrong? I consider it wrong for a reason, not just because theft is a bad word.

I see no reason to allow the government to suck the people dry out of greed. It would justify a revolution. Taking it back from the government is just less extreme than a full revolution.

 

[mzungu]

Whether Robin Hood is a fictional character or not is not the question. What begs to be answered is; The Rich have power and with power comes services, favours, amenities, and all manner of greed based unlawful practices such as tax evasion. I wager that were the internal revenue office to seriously examine all the wealth of the rich then undoubtedly it will uncover illegal practices such as the above mentioned.

Stealing from the rich is nothing more than recuperating what was stolen from them in the first place. Stealing from the Government coffers in the form of tax evasion when the said taxes are not deemed to be neither unfair nor a real burden is a crime.

What a wonderful world this would be were societies to have only a middle class; There would be more wealth to go around!

It is an insult to any society that considers itself "civilised" to have people living in poverty and at the same time to have people with wealth enough to feed and clothe countries!

 

[Catherineanne]

Read the story.

The rightful King (Richard) went abroad on crusade. His brother (John) usurped power, raised taxes illegally for his own use, and got his friends, including the infamous Sherrif of Nottingham, to collect the money for him. Those friends collected for the King, plus a cut for themselves, all totally outside the law. This is not the same as lawful taxation; it was extortion. John is not a lawful tax gatherer, he is a thief. He does not have the authority to raise the levels of taxation, and his friends did not have the authority to steal more on top.

Robin of Loxley objected, and as a result his lands and property was taken from him, and he was declared an outlaw. He went into the forest to live with the other outlaws, who, inter alia, ambushed those carrying the extorted money to the thieves. They took the money and gave it back to those who had been robbed of everything they had, and who had no means of living left to them.

Meanwhile the King had been captured, and an immense ransom asked for. His brother, who had no reason to pay this ransom and lose his power, refused to pay it. Robin went to the poor of the land, and asked them to give what they could. Between them they raised the necessary ransom, sent it abroad and the King was released.

When the King returned he pardoned Robin and the outlaws for any crimes they might have committed, and restored Robin's lands to him. He stopped the unfair taxation levels, set more reasonable taxes, and made sure the thieving stopped.

Therefore there is no question; according to the story Robin was a good guy.

 

[mzungu]

Read the story.

The rightful King (Richard) went abroad on crusade. His brother (John) usurped power, raised taxes illegally for his own use, and got his friends, including the infamous Sherrif of Nottingham, to collect the money for him. Those friends collected for the King, plus a cut for themselves, all totally outside the law. This is not the same as lawful taxation; it was extortion. John is not a lawful tax gatherer, he is a thief. He does not have the authority to raise the levels of taxation, and his friends did not have the authority to steal more on top.

Robin of Loxley objected, and as a result his lands and property was taken from him, and he was declared an outlaw. He went into the forest to live with the other outlaws, who, inter alia, ambushed those carrying the extorted money to the thieves. They took the money and gave it back to those who had been robbed of everything they had, and who had no means of living left to them.

Meanwhile the King had been captured, and an immense ransom asked for. His brother, who had no reason to pay this ransom and lose his power, refused to pay it. Robin went to the poor of the land, and asked them to give what they could. Between them they raised the necessary ransom, sent it abroad and the King was released.

When the King returned he pardoned Robin and the outlaws for any crimes they might have committed, and restored Robin's lands to him. He stopped the unfair taxation levels, set more reasonable taxes, and made sure the thieving stopped.

Therefore there is no question; according to the story Robin was a good guy.

Ata Girl

 

[Catherineanne]

Ata Girl

The morality of the story is not a simple one, imo.

Robin and his friends live outside the law, but are presented as moral people, willing to help poor people to survive.

King Richard is supposed to be the good king who will ensure peace and happiness to his people. If that is the case, why does he keep disappearing abroad on crusade? Why not stay home and look after his people? Why leave such a terrible Regent? He would have been far better advised to send Prince John to manage the crusade, and stay home.

Prince John takes money from poor people, and seems to have no redeeming qualities whatever. Same with the Sherrif.

The overall moral seems to be that absolute power is almost certain to lead to abuses; a person will either abandon his country to go on ill advised Crusade, or else stay home and steal from those with less power. Very few people have the moral strength and judgment needed to combine power and a sense of justice to those less fortunate than themselves with the ability to do the right thing; to that extent the message holds true today as well.

It is not a good reflection of society, on the whole.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I think Robin Hood was justified, both by societal standards, and by Biblical standards too. In a society where one group is severely supressed, as the Anglo-Saxons were under Norman command, anyone who seeks to give equal ground to everyone is generally considered a good guy. I mean look at the Revolutionary War heroes. We idolize them probably far more than we should here in the US, and they were considered traitors to God and country by the British.

From a Biblical perspective there are enough verses and stories in the Bible where situational ethics call for breaking the letter of the law to serve the spirit of the law. For example David took bread from the temple when they were hungry, and it was given to them freely, even though technically it was reserved for the temple.

Ultimately it falls to caring for other people, and holding others responsible, particularly those in power, to do the same.

 

[mzungu]

I think Robin Hood was justified, both by societal standards, and by Biblical standards too. In a society where one group is severely supressed, as the Anglo-Saxons were under Norman command, anyone who seeks to give equal ground to everyone is generally considered a good guy. I mean look at the Revolutionary War heroes. We idolize them probably far more than we should here in the US, and they were considered traitors to God and country by the British.

From a Biblical perspective there are enough verses and stories in the Bible where situational ethics call for breaking the letter of the law to serve the spirit of the law. For example David took bread from the temple when they were hungry, and it was given to them freely, even though technically it was reserved for the temple.

Ultimately it falls to caring for other people, and holding others responsible, particularly those in power, to do the same.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

............



Why is theft wrong? I consider it wrong for a reason, not just because theft is a bad word.

I see no reason to allow the government to suck the people dry out of greed. It would justify a revolution. Taking it back from the government is just less extreme than a full revolution.

Why is ANYTHING wrong from right ? To the Moral Relativist, nothing is objectively wrong to do for its only ones opinion if it is. Fortunately, we can know what is objectively wrong and objectively right...unlike the secular self centered justifications for doing what is wrong regardless ; and the objective standard im speaking of is the very Person, Character, and Intrinsic Nature of God the Creator of the entire Universe and every person . Therefore considering the action of theft, we know it is not correct because our Creator is infinitely PURE , RIGHTEOUS, and JUST . As an adjunct to go along with this, the Creator saw fit to even give us an intrinsic Moral Conscience for us to remember that theft is wrong in addition to other more major actions ; we have the capacity to either go with our Moral Conscience ...or...whats grown to be very popular today....to willfully suppress our Moral Conscience and Gods character so we can do/act/talk/behave anyway we darn well feel like under the lame excuse of : 'there is no God' . Satanist Alister Crowley summed this perverted philosophy of moral relativism thusly : 'Do what they wilt is the whole of the law' -- in other words, embrace anarchy and indulge in whatever you feel like because you are your own god .

Do you understand a bit clearer now ?

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

............



Why is theft wrong? I consider it wrong for a reason, not just because theft is a bad word.

I see no reason to allow the government to suck the people dry out of greed. It would justify a revolution. Taking it back from the government is just less extreme than a full revolution.

Why is ANYTHING wrong from right ? To the Moral Relativist, nothing is objectively wrong to do for its only ones opinion if it is. Fortunately, we can know what is objectively wrong and objectively right...unlike the secular self centered justifications for doing what is wrong regardless ; and the objective standard im speaking of is the very Person, Character, and Intrinsic Nature of God the Creator of the entire Universe and every person . Therefore considering the action of theft, we know it is not correct because our Creator is infinitely PURE , RIGHTEOUS, and JUST . As an adjunct to go along with this, the Creator saw fit to even give us an intrinsic Moral Conscience for us to remember that theft is wrong in addition to other more major actions ; we have the capacity to either go with our Moral Conscience ...or...whats grown to be very popular today....to willfully suppress our Moral Conscience and Gods character so we can do/act/talk/behave anyway we darn well feel like under the lame excuse of : 'there is no God' . Satanist Alister Crowley summed this perverted philosophy of moral relativism thusly : 'Do what they wilt is the whole of the law' -- in other words, embrace anarchy and indulge in whatever you feel like because you are your own god .

Do you understand a bit clearer now ?

If you still dont agree, then, would you mind if i stole something from you because you had excess then pawned it so i could get money to supplement my elderly mothers puny amount of social security she gets from our stingy U.S. Government each month ?

 

[dies-l]

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

In the Catholic law school I attended, we discussed two types of unjust laws: There are laws that compel unjust or immoral conduct (for example, laws that require a person to have an abortion even if that person morally objects or laws that require a person to renounce his or her faith). There are laws that allow unjust or immoral conduct (this could be said of any law that allows a person to do something that another would find immoral, but in my Catholic law school education, these would be laws that, for example, allow abortion or birth control or that allow the wealthy to exploit the poor, such as in predatory lending and so forth). I would add a third type, being laws by which the government performs some injustice on its own or another people, such as unfair or unreasonable taxation.

Do you believe that Jefferson's quote would apply to all three types?