Ethicacy of Robin Hood

[BornInMarch]

Now I know stealing is sinful, and that stealing an amount of wealth that the victim can’t easily recover from is a mortal sin, but does this still apply when the person being robbed themselves gained their money through immoral or illegal means?

Would it be a mortal sin if someone agreed to captain a slave ship, only to set the “cargo” free at the first opportunity?

What if it’s a bugler who breaks into the mansion of a cartel leader, steals everything of value inside, fences it, and then gives a large amount of that money to charity?

What if it’s a mugger who only targets drug-dealers and pimps and who hands out some of his spare money to beggars in his neighborhood?

(assume in all three examples that the person being robbed will be financially ruined by this robbery).

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Now I know stealing is sinful, and that stealing an amount of wealth that the victim can’t easily recover from is a mortal sin, but does this still apply when the person being robbed themselves gained their money through immoral or illegal means?

Would it be a mortal sin if someone agreed to captain a slave ship, only to set the “cargo” free at the first opportunity?

What if it’s a bugler who breaks into the mansion of a cartel leader, steals everything of value inside, fences it, and then gives a large amount of that money to charity?

What if it’s a mugger who only targets drug-dealers and pimps and who hands out some of his spare money to beggars in his neighborhood?

(assume in all three examples that the person being robbed will be financially ruined by this robbery).

I would say, IMO, the first one would be moral, because people can never be property anyway. The rest, I don’t think so. Robin Hood gained nothing personal from his robbery. In fact, he took from the spare that the greedy rich had and gave it to the destitute. In the above examples, I don’t think the robber is any better than the initial drug dealer / cartel leader. He’s just looking to profit and assuage his conscience by giving some of it away.

 

[John_Lazarus]

What if it’s a **bugler **who breaks into the mansion of a cartel leader, steals everything of value inside, fences it, and then gives a large amount of that money to charity?

It’s not a sin; it’s not like he’s a sax offender, or commited crimes with violins.

 

[exnihilo]

Robin Hood gained nothing personal from his robbery. In fact, he took from the spare that the greedy rich had and gave it to the destitute.

I thought Robin Hood stole from the greedy tax collector.

 

[LethalMouse]

Depends on which Robin Hood, how and why.

In the Kostner version Robin was a legitimate Lord who was outsted by a rebel planning to overthrow the legitimate government and entrap and rape the Kings cousin…

I would say he had much moral leeway.

If I go rob Donald Trump and give it all to charity I would not put me on the same level.

 

[rfournier103]

I think that would be between Robin Hood, his priest, and God.

 

[phil19034]

Objectively, Robin Hood sinned 100%. But the question is whether it was mortal or not. As someone previously wrote, that would be between him, his confessor and God.

He’s a gray area because he wasn’t breaking the law to protect the innocent from death, he was breaking the law to protect the innocent from being poor.

If his motivations were pure, my GUESS is that it was venial, but I’m not God.

 

[GEddie]

Depends on which Robin Hood, how and why.

In the Kostner version Robin was a legitimate Lord who was outsted by a rebel planning to overthrow the legitimate government and entrap and rape the Kings cousin…

I would say he had much moral leeway.

If I go rob Donald Trump and give it all to charity I would not put me on the same level.

The circumstances of your birth do not, in themselves, change the morality of your actions, i.e. being born to nobility (in a country that has that distinction) does not make actions sinless that would otherwise be a sin. Nor does being born into poverty excuse sins, although it can certainly mitigate or negate the culpability for them.

The genetic ooze under someone’s skin determines the shape and color of the skin, but not the state of the soul.

In general, trying to rob robbers is not a good idea because the risk of death is very great (sin against life).

ICXC NIKA

 

[Thorolfr]

I would say, IMO, the first one would be moral, because people can never be property anyway.

But that’s not what the Bible says. According to Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property

We can’t disagree with God now can we?

 

[LethalMouse]

The circumstances of your birth do not, in themselves, change the morality of your actions, i.e. being born to nobility (in a country that has that distinction) does not make actions sinless that would otherwise be a sin. Nor does being born into poverty excuse sins, although it can certainly mitigate or negate the culpability for them.

The genetic ooze under someone’s skin determines the shape and color of the skin, but not the state of the soul.

In general, trying to rob robbers is not a good idea because the risk of death is very great (sin against life).

ICXC NIKA

So then if the rightfully elected president is visiting Europe, and the VP was in South america and the VP comes back to find a rougue individual is subjegating his citizens and usurpoling the president and constitution the VP must do nothing???

Dude it has nothing to do with blood, He was a legit government official fighting for the Legitimate government against conspirators plannijg a coup and subverting the law of the land.

Did you get any of that part?

 

[LethalMouse]

The circumstances of your birth do not, in themselves, change the morality of your actions, i.e. being born to nobility (in a country that has that distinction) does not make actions sinless that would otherwise be a sin. Nor does being born into poverty excuse sins, although it can certainly mitigate or negate the culpability for them.

The genetic ooze under someone’s skin determines the shape and color of the skin, but not the state of the soul.

In general, trying to rob robbers is not a good idea because the risk of death is very great (sin against life).

ICXC NIKA

I just realized you could lack familiarity with the particular movie in question in which case I sort of cmget the confusion

 

[BornInMarch]

It’s not a sin; it’s not like he’s a sax offender, or commited crimes with violins.

uch:

burglar! burglar!

This Forum doesn’t let us edit old posts after awhile.

 

[Entwhistler]

Well, if Mr. X stole Mrs. Y’s TV then it is not stealing to take it from him and return it to its rightful owner. Stealing is taking something that doesn’t belong to you. Those who steal in the first place have no right to what they have stolen. So if you go back and take the stolen goods and return them to their rightful owners you are not stealing since they did not belong to the robber in the first place. Sneaking into the robbers house ninja style might not be the safest way to get the goods back but it is not stealing.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Well, if Mr. X stole Mrs. Y’s TV then it is not stealing to take it from him and return it to its rightful owner. Stealing is taking something that doesn’t belong to you. Those who steal in the first place have no right to what they have stolen. So if you go back and take the stolen goods and return them to their rightful owners you are not stealing since they did not belong to the robber in the first place. Sneaking into the robbers house ninja style might not be the safest way to get the goods back but it is not stealing.

So, the question of theft aside, what of breaking and entering/burglary? Is that a sin?

 

[LethalMouse]

So, the question of theft aside, what of breaking and entering/burglary? Is that a sin?

Burglary is theft…

Breaking and entering is dependent

Did you break into my house for no reason?

Did you break into my vacation cabin while lost in a snow storm to avoid death?

Etc etc…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, if Mr. X stole Mrs. Y’s TV then it is not stealing to take it from him and return it to its rightful owner. Stealing is taking something that doesn’t belong to you. Those who steal in the first place have no right to what they have stolen. So if you go back and take the stolen goods and return them to their rightful owners you are not stealing since they did not belong to the robber in the first place. Sneaking into the robbers house ninja style might not be the safest way to get the goods back but it is not stealing.

The characterization of the Robin Hood act as simply returning the goods to the rightful owner is only valid if you are absolutely sure the rich guy has stolen the goods from the rightful owner. If someone is merely rich, even if it was partially by means of a rigged economy that favors the rich, that does not constitute undeniable evidence that the rich guy’s TV ought to be returned to some random poor person. You are on shaky moral ground when you make those assumptions.

 

[Entwhistler]

The characterization of the Robin Hood act as simply returning the goods to the rightful owner is only valid if you are absolutely sure the rich guy has stolen the goods from the rightful owner. If someone is merely rich, even if it was partially by means of a rigged economy that favors the rich, that does not constitute undeniable evidence that the rich guy’s TV ought to be returned to some random poor person. You are on shaky moral ground when you make those assumptions.

True. When you enter the real world everything is not so cut and dry. That is why in the American legal system (which is derived from the British legal system) a man is innocent until proven guilty. Redistribution of wealth cannot happen through some pie-in-the-sky idea that you stole the money from someone and we will give to some random person.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Depends on which Robin Hood, how and why.

In the Kostner version Robin was a legitimate Lord who was outsted by a rebel planning to overthrow the legitimate government and entrap and rape the Kings cousin…

I would say he had much moral leeway.

If I go rob Donald Trump and give it all to charity I would not put me on the same level.

The version I’m familiar with is that he specifically stole the taxes from the corrupt government, the government who taxed the people into starvation… And specifically gave it back to the people it belonged to. Also, he had the priest in charge of the distribution to avoid conflict of interest. Robin Hood and the band may have kept enough of the corrupt oligarchy’s personal possessions to finance their campaign, but heck, King David took the bread of offering…and they were only running from the legit King, Saul.

Robin Hood was reversing immoral redistribution. He was not imposing his own version of ‘take down the rich’ like many so called activists today.

The important thing to remember was that he stole back unjust TAXES, not anything that actually belonged to or was earned by the rich. So I bristle every time an out and out thief is compared to Robin Hood.

Edit: just realized LM was talking about a movie. I refer to the only real thing, the books.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is not so much with the Robin Hood story and the context in which it is set. The problem comes when people try to inappropritately apply that story to specific modern day situations.

 

[SilverShadow22]

The problem is not so much with the Robin Hood story and the context in which it is set. The problem comes when people try to inappropritately apply that story to specific modern day situations.

I absolutely agree with this.

There is no legal means of redress when the entire legal system is run by the criminals… The ‘sheriff’ was the one doing the stealing, so who are you going to go to? The sheriff?