Is Robinhood good or bad? Why?

 Please anchor (and tame) your opinions on

the ethical frameworks we have studied.

Virtue ethics and natural law theory emphasized the role of the PERSON in

ethical and moral actions.

Deontological Ethics emphasized the role of MOTIVES in morality.

Utilitarianism emphasized the CONSEQUENCES of any action in judging its

morality.

Virtue ethics and natural law theory emphasized the role of the individual in ethical
and moral actions. It is not interested in the moral status of individual actions, but
rather is interested in the character traits and dispositions of the person performing
those actions. In the case of Robin Hood, he is willing to steal from the rich in order
to give to the poor. If he commits this act out of self-selving flattery or he simple
hates rich people, the the act is not virtuous. However, if he steal in the basis of
righteousness and generosity, then the act is virtuous.

Robin Hood's acts are immoral from a deontological standpoint because it violates
the society’s rules. If you look from this perspective, it doesn’t matter if Robin Hood
is stealing from the rich or from the poor because the consequences does not matter.
Stealing is wrong and people are not willing to allow everyone else to do it as well. So
Robin Hood should not be an exception. The definition of "right" or "wrong" is solely
based on whether an action breaks the law. Robin Hood also used human beings as
mere means. He involve both the rich and the poor people in a scheme of action to
which he could not in principle consent. Therefore, Robin Hood’s action actions are
immoral according to the formula of humanity.

In the utilitarian perspective, Robin Hood’s acts would be justifiable or ethical. The
core principle of utilitarianism is that if an action aims to encourage or provide
pleasure or happiness for a majority of citizens, it is justified. And this is applicable to
Robin Hood because “to steal from the rich and give to the poor” is his basic
principle. The act of stealing may be immoral, but the consequences of his action has
helped and made a lot of poor people happy. In this case, the ends justify the means.

In my opinion, Robin Hood's act of stealing is only a temporary solution. Indeed,

literally robbing from the rich to give to the poor is very temporary relief. But while
he's doing this, Robin Hood is also working on a more permanent solution:
overthrowing the corrupt ruler and restoring a just one.Robin Hood simultaneously
deals with the real problems of the real people around him while still going after the
ultimate goal. Human suffering is not an abstract. To turn away from real, immediate
suffering because it won't solve the "big picture" is immoral.
But it is relief from crushing poverty, and that is moral.
Robin Hood's thievery, in my view, is just a temporary solution. Indeed, simply
robbing the wealthy in order to offer to the poor provides only a temporary solution.
However, the poor people are enjoying relief from grinding poverty, which is moral.
While doing so, Robin Hood is also working on a more long-term solution: deposing
the unjust tyrant and replacing him with a more just one. overthrowing the corrupt
ruler and restoring a just one. Robin Hood simultaneously deals with the actual
struggles of the people around him while still going after the ultimate goal. To turn
away from real, immediate suffering because it won't solve the "big picture" is
immoral.