Robin Hood

In the childhood folklore Robin Hood, there is a man who goes around stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, “taking from the greedy and giving to the needy”. In certain societies, the actions of Robin Hood can either be seen as morally right for helping the poor, but also morally wrong for stealing. There is no exact answer as to why Robin Hood did what he did, or what was going through his mind but it could be that he genuinely wanted to help others. There are many different viewpoints and different people having different reasoning as to why he did what he did. The three theories – divine command theory, utilitarianism and egoism – all show different aspects of how the situation can be assessed, which will all be discussed.

The divine command theory states that good actions are the will of God, while bad actions are contrary to the will of God. “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments, which philosophers have shown to come from God. It is not the will of God to steal, making Robin Hood’s actions morally wrong. On the other hand, providing help to the poor is morally and ethically right and even though the source of the help comes from stealing, it is still in God’s will for Robin Hood to give to the poor even though he is giving something that is not his. Robin Hood is showing his obedience to God by delivering them things that they haven’t had before, which in return will give them a better life. The divine command theory can be interpreted either way in this case, but for the most part it is not in God’s will to steal, no matter who it is going to help but if we had to justify the action it would be by showing that it is ethical to help the poor by any means necessary.

The theory of utilitarianism is based solely on the greatest good. Whatever decision, rule or act made is only right if it benefits the greater good and/or amount of people involved. The answer of who benefits the most would be the “correct” resolution for a situation. In the case of Robin Hood, a utilitarian would agree that what he is doing is morally correct because it focuses on the needs of the greater good, in this case the poor. There are a lot more poor people in the world than there are rich so taking from them doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing. The greater good benefits the most, making poor people not as poor so it betters their living conditions. On the opposing side, who is really to say that the poor people are the greater good? In this case, Robin Hood is the determiner that makes the decision of which is which and because of his beliefs the poor need the money more than the rich do. It is not a good will to steal, which is another opposing factor of utilitarianism. All in all, utilitarianism justifies Robin Hood’s actions by providing aid to those that need it more, the poor people.

Egoism, of the three, is the theory that does not really apply to the Robin Hood case as obviously. Egoism is the theory that each person should focus solely on his or her own self-interest. You should only help someone else if it benefits you as well. Unlike the divine command theory and utilitarianism, it only focuses on one’s self-being. Unless Robin Hood kept some of the riches for himself, he seemed to be focused on others. Or, it could be that Robin Hood wanted the recognition of helping others, which shows that he only helped others because it benefited him first. He wanted the glory and for his name to be in the headlines, which is a huge case of egoism because he only cared about himself, and nothing else.