I hope this is ok to post here as I'm not sure where else to put it, but I am really curious to see where this goes.
The Robin Hood moral paradox is one similar to the one for Death Note (I didn't put that one up here as it's likely too dark for pb), where you have two groups of people, the rich, wealthy evil people that laugh and don't care about anyone else and only make the world worse when they abuse their money and power. And the poor people who barely make a living and can't enjoy life due to them being so poor. The paradox comes in where a wealthy evil person suddenly loses a LOT of money and a similar amount goes into the poor people's bank accounts to make their lives suck a lot less. When this happens is the world not better etc now as less people are suffering? What about when you hear that someone had to steal from the evil rich person to make the poor people's lives better? Is it still ethical then?
Please be respectful of poor people in this thread and don't be dissmissive with "just get a job" because in the state I live in it would take a single mother of two 9 minimum wage jobs to afford a cheap 1 room appartment and not have her children starve.
It depends on the situation. It's not ethical to kill either but if you kill evil person who kills your people, it is war. War is not a nice ideal thing to have but sometimes it is necessary . Same goes for the Robin Hood situation: Rich people steal (demand outrageous tax) from the poor - Robin's people, and Robin steals from those rich people. It's not ideal, but it is necessary, so people could live. Additionally, there is an old say in Hebrew- "Prefer your town's poor" which means- when 2 groups (yours and your enemy's) can suffer from your action, give the priority to your own people. This sentence goes against most nation's medical rule, for example, which tells the paramedic to take care first for the one who has the most injuries or the one who is more likely to die in a scene with 2 or more injured people. What happens when the one with the most injuries is the killer who stabbed the rest of the injured people and another one is the brave cop who shot the killer and got him to his severe situation? What should the paramedic do? follow medical ethics? or the moral of "prefer your town's poor"? Should he take care for the killer first? or maybe live him for last, and taking care for the cop or the victims?
First of all before I say anything else I would like to make a disclaimer of sorts: a person's wealth does not dictate their moral standards. Right now the thread seems to be saying that all high-income earners are evil bastards and all low-income earners are innocent angels. This isn't true at all.
However, to answer your question up-front, there is no answer. Essentially there are three ideals at war in this paradox: utilitarianism, deontology and ethical egoism. You cannot place one of these ways of thinking above another, as everyone has different views on each philosophical tenet. However, in slightly more basic terms, I'll define each of those ideals and then connect it to the situation given:
Utilitarianism is the belief that actions should be considered by consequences, and the most ethical and moral actions are those which maximise happiness in the greatest number of people. This is probably both the best-known and most widely-used way of thinking, even if people don't know what utilitarianism is. This means that if a stereotypically immoral act, such as murder, is used in the right situation, such as murdering a terrorist to prevent further deaths, this would inevitably be the optimal thing to do, as it would invoke (or rather prevent the loss of) large amounts of happiness in large swathes of people. This relates to the Robin Hood paradox given in the OP by saying that Robin Hood is correct. As the group of morally corrupt aristocrats is diminutive in quantity compared to the thousands of financially lacking workers who would receive this stolen money, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor would be the most ethical thing to do.
Deontology is, however, quite different. It's traced back to famous philosophy and founder of existentialism Emmanuel Kant, and he basically said that consequences of an action are unreliable and impossible to fully predict, so instead of judging an action by its outcomes you should instead judge the action itself. He further challenged utilitarianism by stating that happiness is oftentimes misplaced, so if the motive is to create the most happiness, this could well be damaging in other ways. Therefore, in this Robin Hood example, a deontologist would say that Robin Hood should not steal from the corrupt wealthy patricians, as the actual consequences of said action can't be foretold. For example, once given to those without money, they could start living decadent lifestyles until the money runs out again, leaving them more depressed than they were before. On the other hand, since consequences aren't being considered at all, a deontologist might say that "stealing is wrong, end of", which would also mean they don't think Robin Hood should take the money.
And then the oftentimes forgotten third wheel is ethical egoism, which is on the face of it the simplest of the three. In layman's terms, it essentially states that people should do what benefits themselves the most, and anything which does that is entirely moral. As its founder Henry Sidgwick states, "whereas utilitarianism sought to maximise overall pleasure, egoism focused only on maximising individual pleasure". This means that, like utilitarianism, ethical egoism judges an action based on its outcomes as opposed to the action itself. In this Robin Hood example, it's impossible to say what Robin would do without being the "hero" himself. On the one hand, stealing from the wealthy puts him in a lot of danger, so it's perhaps not the most practically beneficial to him. Emotionally, however, it must be very rewarding being able to change people's lives (hopefully) for the better by giving them a lot of money. It would inevitably just depend on what kind of person Robin Hood really is, but looking at how he's portrayed in pretty much every show, I'd say he'd probably steal the riches.
That's the objective part of the post over and done with -- now I'll actually talk about my opinion, which I would say is probably worth less than the fact stated above, so I'm spoilering it to make this post look a bit smaller.
I don't define myself as a single one of the above three ideals, because I don't believe the huge amounts of possible situations you can find yourself in in life can be generalised enough into having a similar response to every situation. If I were Robin Hood in this example, I would first of all ask myself how necessary it is to steal this money, as I would be the person changing something if I went through with it. This is what I do with most situations, really. In this example I wouldn't perform it at all, because I don't think that, even if the wealthy victims are apparently morally deficient and something probably needs to change in order to close the wealth gap, a longer term solution would be far more effective, and the consequences from a short-term fix like this are too unreliable to predict properly. If I hypothetically did deem it necessary enough that I wanted to steal the money, however, I would then work on minimising the amount of negative anything caused by the action of doing so. This one part is similar to utilitarianism, but instead of maximising positive consequences, it's minimising negative ones, as there will always be a trade-off involved in any action taken. For example, I might take a lump sum from only one or two aristocrats, but I would still leave enough money in their banks for them to invest it and make it back up to their current social standing, and as I would target only a few of the patricians, this means there would be less lives affected. Very opposite to utilitarianism, however, is my next step. Instead of spreading out a bit of money to loads of people in financial difficulty, I would give enough money to a select few in order to secure them a better long-term future as opposed to a short-term fix for everyone. This means that some people would lose out, but for those who do receive money, it would actually have a significantly positive impact on the rest of their lives, so long as they use it wisely from there on out.
Personally I don't think there's a lot of room for debate in this thread, but I hope that my post, sans my own opinion thrown in at the end, could be used as a good starting point for people who are seeking a proper discussion on this topic!
I hope that my post, sans my own opinion thrown in at the end, could be used as a good starting point for people who are seeking a proper discussion on this topic!
Well, as you very wisely said, there's no placing any one ethical stance above the others, so the debate wouldn't be resolved at all, beyond individual statements of which ethical position a person favors. It would be like asking whether vanilla, chocolate or strawberry is the best ice cream flavor.
But this isn't really a paradox, either, it's just a moral conundrum that has been unresolved since even before Peirce, Kant and Sidgwick codified the ethical postures themselves.
However, there could be a discussion about interpreting what stance robin hood takes; he could be utilitarian (happiness of the poor > suffering of the rich), or even ethically egotistic (since he gets satisfaction and an adrenaline rush from stealing, making the benefit of the poor a byproduct of his thrill-seeking). It would seem he's not a deontologist, however, since he commits crimes.
Oh, and good job pointing out the double standards about the wealth-morality false equivalence.
Well, as you very wisely said, there's no placing any one ethical stance above the others, so the debate wouldn't be resolved at all, beyond individual statements of which ethical position a person favors.
By making such a statement, aren't you creating a contradiction: you are placing the ethical stance that all the presented options are equally valid, which I take it is your own position, and asserting it above those of anyone who disagrees with the premise and does not suppose that all ethical stances are equal. Unsurprisingly I don't think all three are equal, but arguing the specifics is generally tedious and unrewarding as it boils down to many other personal beliefs of which people are most defensive and understandably so as they are generally part of the foundation of one's worldview.
I had planned on sitting this discussion out, even going so far as to PM @Empoleon_master to discuss it. So far I am impressed at the direction of the discussion: even though I just challenged a point by professorlight it is not one filled with anger or malice. I may have badly understood what was being said or otherwise have missed something, and as such there may be an answer that proves me wrong.
As I don't want this to be too long of a post, I'll very broadly summarize what I said in the PM: the premise seemed awkward and forced as it flat out stated all wealthy were evil (even if this was intended only to simplify the exercise) and that all poor were apparently neutral or unknown. In the end it breaks down to matters such as authority to have the right to confiscate the private property of another, the power to actually accomplish the feat and the knowledge (or wisdom) to do so correctly. The above situation crafted by Empoleon_master has an issue in that for all wealth to be in the hands of such blatantly evil individuals who use it to do nothing but evil are almost certainly going to put themselves into a position where their life is forfeit and more importantly, where it becomes more and more likely that someone who now has the right (possibly the duty) to collect shall find his, her or themselves in position to do so.
The problem that always arises with "poorer" people acquiring a lot of money is that they don't know the value of it. It sounds very strange, as you'd think someone with hardly any money would know that money can buy anything. However, look at lottery winners, who have had nothing, or very basic lives, and suddenly now have £33 million. Even after you buy a nice house, a nice car, go on a few holidays, you'd find you've only spent around £ 1 million. There's a TV Documentary in the UK either out or being shown next week about families on benefits, and they get the benefits they would receive all year in a lump sum. These people have never had access to that amount of money in their lives and what did the majority do? Spend it on random rubbish that they don't need. It's no control-often people who have lots of money know how to spend it and most importantly know how to control it.
In the short-term, stealing the money would make the poorer lives better. They'd buy what they want (but as stated not what is necessary). After a while funds would go though. What do they do then? Demand more money to be stolen? In the long term it's not a fix solution. If "Robin Hood" where to pick and choose whom to give the money to based on if it were to help their lives long term, then those people themselves may be target by mobs, or comments asking why they were chosen to get money.
Money makes people greedy and do unimaginable things. Whilst he may think "Yes I've done something morally good": lawfully he has committed a crime. As stated, it's not a paradox-people with money would cry out he should be arrested whilst people without would protect or encourage him.
The problem that always arises with "poorer" people acquiring a lot of money is that they don't know the value of it. It sounds very strange, as you'd think someone with hardly any money would know that money can buy anything. However, look at lottery winners, who have had nothing, or very basic lives, and suddenly now have £33 million. Even after you buy a nice house, a nice car, go on a few holidays, you'd find you've only spent around £ 1 million. There's a TV Documentary in the UK either out or being shown next week about families on benefits, and they get the benefits they would receive all year in a lump sum. These people have never had access to that amount of money in their lives and what did the majority do? Spend it on random rubbish that they don't need. It's no control-often people who have lots of money know how to spend it and most importantly know how to control it.
In the short-term, stealing the money would make the poorer lives better. They'd buy what they want (but as stated not what is necessary). After a while funds would go though. What do they do then? Demand more money to be stolen? In the long term it's not a fix solution. If "Robin Hood" where to pick and choose whom to give the money to based on if it were to help their lives long term, then those people themselves may be target by mobs, or comments asking why they were chosen to get money.
Money makes people greedy and do unimaginable things. Whilst he may think "Yes I've done something morally good": lawfully he has committed a crime. As stated, it's not a paradox-people with money would cry out he should be arrested whilst people without would protect or encourage him.
Don't generalise. Many people with low incomes don't know the value of money, fine. Many people with low incomes do know the value of money. Many people with high incomes don't know the value of money. Many people with high incomes do know the value of money.
A person's wealth dictates nothing but how much they can buy.
How about the Robin Aisaga Moral Paradox? Everyone gives their properties to me and they just gotta deal with it! Kidding aside, there are generous and greedy people, they can be either poor or rich. Wether someone deserves their wealth is nearly impossible to undermine. Perhaps the society you live in is not entirely fair. Some people have to work harder to make a decent living. Live itself isn't fair. It is up to us, the people, to fight injustice. But not through means like stealing. Stealing is a sin anyway you look at it.
Robin Hood is a story about a greedy king that orders his subjects to collect the profits from his already poor people. This was injustice. However in the stories Robin took back the loot by stealing it. I think he had somewhat the right to do so, because it was taken from the folk in an unrightful way. But I don't think anyone on Pokébeach is in a simular situation, so there is no need to discuss this really.
