Robin Hood Dilemma
"It’s better to make the poor richer than to make the rich poorer"  ― Winston Churchill

Legend of Robin Hood

After the fall of the Roman Empire (c376-476CE) money disappeared and people were at the mercy of invaders. To pay for protection the owner gave his land to the noble but was allowed to use it during his lifetime. The noble’s power was based on the land he held in feud.  The legend of Robin Hood rose out of the chaos during the reign of King John of England. Medieval Europe was a time where everyone lived by feudal obligations.
The mythical Robin Hood character (and his outlaw “The Merry Men”) probably originated from 'Robin of the Woods’ of 13th-century plays.  Robin appears as an anti-establishment rebel who stood for justice, liberty and the rights of the people against unjust laws, the tyranny of the nobles and King John, the corrupt church, idle rich cronies, and the feudal system itself.  He’s a champion of the underclass, sticking it, shooting it and slashing it to the ‘greedy’ elites.

The Dilemma
By murdering government agents and robbing wealthy landowners Robin Hood has morally/ethically done wrong. He has violated the Kantian Categorical Imperative.  To put it more succinctly, in a court of law the prosecution would ask “did you kill or steal?”  Your reply can only be ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and not followed by “well, yes, but it was for a good reason…”.  So, the Robin Hood dilemma comes down to:

Is it ethical to use unethical means to achieve something good?

Cultural statistic: “51%” of the U.S. population agree that it is not good to steal from the ‘rich’ and “49%” agree that it is acceptable to steal from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor' (says a lot about the forces within the current divide in the public square). To inquiry about the morality of wealth redistribution it’s best to specify: according to whom?

Sidenote: A poll conducted by Debate.org asked the question "Are all humans equal?" 
No: 52% Yes: 48%

Kantian View

Immanuel Kant's fundamental formulation in ‘The Categorical Imperative’, a theory of morality, states:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

According to Kantian moral theory, the act of robbing someone becomes, in essence, treating a person as a means to produce a result. Kant was explicitly against that behavior and that people should only ever be used as ends. Kant would turn Robin Hood into the authorities, as robbing is a morally bad action, no matter the intentions. Kant would not look at the situation as a whole and would not take into account the overall pain and overall pleasure caused by the action. He would only look at the action itself, which normally is considered a 'bad' or morally wrong thing to do.  He argues that if it is right for one man to rob, it should be right for anyone to rob, as the action should be considered alone, and the circumstances cannot change how moral the action is.

Thomas Aquinas View

Thomas Aquinas created the Natural Law theory by using Aristotle's philosophy and applied it to Christian thinking. Aquinas, like Kant, would most likely given Robin Hood to the authorities. As robbing is not a 'natural' human function, Aquinas would have deemed it as immoral. The man did not 'have' to rob the ‘rich’ or a ‘bank’ to give to charity. If he really needed to give to charity and he thought the charity needed the money badly, he could have donated his own money, or held a fundraiser for the charity to benefit from. If the man could not afford to give to the charity himself or organize a fundraiser, he could have spread awareness, or not given to the charity at all.

Utilitarian View

From a Utilitarian point-of-view Robin Hood’s actions are deemed righteous because they have achieved a good and, as the justification goes, ‘made the world a better place’.  In the end, to ‘steal from the rich to feed the poor’ (vigilante wealth redistribution) is a kind of calculus of utility − to figure out what one should do based on what there is to gain or loss in the process.  If the consequences are acceptable, then one is willing to do wrong to do good, even to commit an act of murder. The Utilitarian justifies Robin Hood’s actions since, to them, the laws governing society in medieval England were unethical because they were made by the rich and powerful to make sure that they remained rich and powerful and also to make sure that the poor "99%” can't gain power.
 

Stepping aside from the romantic, ‘Hollywood’ story of the Robin Hood legend, the real history is that, true, the poor serfs were powerless to change their condition, it was the rebellious major landowners (the barons) that waged war against King John of England (1215-1217) which ultimately led to the Magna Carta or Great Charter (protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown).  The ‘spirit’ of the Magna Carta led to the banishment (and execution) of the absolute, tyrannical monarch Charles I (1649; raised taxes without the consent of parliament; removed members parliament without due process – clause 39 of the Magna Carta); to the liberal philosophy of the Glorious Revolution (1688; greater parliamentary supremacy); to the creation of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the US Constitution (1787).  Benjamin Franklin even used the Magna Carta's phrase “No Taxation without Representation,” in his debates with King George of England. The 18th-century was the final phase in the history of the hierarchical feudal society.  The old system of classes determined by birth and in having a privileged nobility came to an end. 

Can a case be made for Robin Hood’s swashbuckling antics as the first step along a long road to the breakdown of the ancient feudal system of government? For myth making Hollywood, sure. The reality is the crimes Robin and his band of outlaws committed were burglaries, arson, assaulting clergymen, and murdering travelers. The nature of their brutal law-breaking behavior was slowly eroded throughout history where Robin’s character was made into a domesticated hero against the ‘corrupt’ elites – a romantic story that a ‘Utilitarian’ mindset could admire and relate to.

Situation Ethics View

Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991), considers the context of an act rather than a strict, linear judgment according to an absolute moral standard (ie, Categorical Imperative, 10 Commandments). The main principle, outlined in Fletcher's book, "Situation Ethics", states that "all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in the particular situation, and thus may be broken or ignored if another course of action would achieve a more loving outcome.”
Situation Ethics argues the only way of deciding if an action is moral or immoral is by looking at the circumstances and all the other variables. Of course, there are many interpretations of what it means to be ‘loving’ or ‘compassionate’. Who does the calculating? What is their qualification and experience? How do you resolve conflicting subjective interpretations? Is Robin Hood really fighting for social justice, or just to regain what has been taken from him?  Possibly he is for the people, but not of the people, just a ‘champagne socialist’ who practices philanthropy with other people’s money.  Looking at another ‘variable’ - did the serfs approach the barons to force King John to terms?

Metaphysical View

When we set out to incarnate there was a two-fold purpose: to advance spiritually and perfect ourselves, and to return this infinite experience back to the Creator as emotion and feeling. We all come in with "Life Themes" for the purpose to perfect ourselves and to perfect for God. There are ‘positive’ themes (eg, healer) and ‘negative’ themes. An example of a 'negative' Theme is the 'Irritant'  The Irritant is very important to everyone’s perfection, because in being with them or observing them, we learn all manner of Themes (eg, Patience, Tolerance, etc). Judas', in the Bible, theme was 'Pawn'. His betrayal of Christ was ultimately a critical element in the birth of Christianity. In a negative or positive way, Pawns actually cause something of usually great magnitude to happen. 
The point being, everyone’s theme(s) will resonate, in some fashion or another, to a prescribed ethical/moral view. It’s about how one emotionally and intellectually understands their position and their grounding in what is ethical or moral. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – it’s a personal imperative that gives one the conviction of knowing you are doing the right thing regardless of others or society says.  But, as the saying goes, “to be righteous, you need to be right”.

Ok, so some of you may be thinking ‘what in the wide world of woo-woo is going on here?’  Fair enough. The Golden Seat does it’s best to keep the ‘woo-woo’ to a minimum. As discussed in the "Lengthy Story" the Golden Seat's ‘Frame of Mind’ is spiritual - Spiritual Discovery before going to the "Undiscovered Territory".

‘Atlas Shrugged’ View

In Ayn Rand’s classic epic novel “Atlas Shrugged”, Ragnar Danneskjold is a brilliant philosopher who chooses to fight the looters as a pirate.  He robs their ships and restores the wealth to the people who produced it. Danneskjold is the opposite of Robin Hood: he robs the poor and gives to the rich − he takes from the parasitical and restores wealth to the productive.  He condemns Robin Hood as “immoral and contemptible” and “the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does”.

Sidenote:  Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ philosophy is an example of the “Orange” meme (Achievist-Strategic) of Spiral Dynamics' "Levels of Cultural Psychological Existence".  Orange Theme: Act in your own self-interest by playing the game to win.  “Green” meme (Communitarian-Egalitarian) is the next ‘level’ after “Orange”. Green Theme: Seek peace within the inner self and explore, with others, the caring dimensions of community.

z