Do you consider Robinhood as good or evil?

Question

Robinhood stole from the rich to give to the poor, but what if the rich people he stole from worked hard to get their riches? Wouldn't you consider it evil to then take what they worked for and give it to a bunch of lazy loafers?

Answer 1

I consider RobinHood a myth...you are framing the question in a way in order to get a particular answer...some people steal and get rich, some people steal and stay poor, some people don't steal at all...stealing is wrong, but righting a social injustice is right....who's to say what is a social injustice? ahhhh...there's the rub.

Answer 2

You would have to know whether the people he stole from had actually worked for their money or if they had simply stolen from others as many rich people in those times (and these) did and do. Rich people in all times have generally become rich from other people's hard work rather than their own. How many CEO's do you think actually get out on the factory floor and build a single thing? Zero. Workers build the products and are paid 140 times less than the CEO's who don't build or produce a single thing. Think of a basketball factory for example. The employees produce every single basketball that leaves the factory. They are paid maybe $6-8 an hour and work 10-14 hours a day. The CEO on the other hand sits on his butt all day in his air-conditioned office and makes several million dollars a year. Who goes home more tired everyday? The workers or the bosses? So if someone came along and decided to balance the scales a little by taking some of the excesses of the bosses and redistribute them to the workers, I'm ok with that. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Answer 3

He was good. If the rich worked for it they should share at least some of it. But I doubt they worked anywhere near as hard as some poor people do. Rich people back then and now make way too much off of taxes and something should be done about it. It's too bad we don't have someone more like Robinhood as a president!

Answer 4

It's all based on the situation. If the rich got rich illegally or immorally then Robin Hood is good. But let's say everyone was rich but then some people were over indulgent and spent all their money on stupids things and became poor then Robin Hood is bad. But in the case of the original folklore...he's good.

Answer 5

well the story goes that the rich stole from the poor and back in robin hood times there was a barter system and whatever they accumilated after a lifetime of farming or whatever the rich stole their shyt and kept it for themselves....had they worked hard for their money then yes it would have been wrong but thats not how the story goes....

Answer 6

In the roleplaying world Robin Hood is considered Chaotic Neutral also known as the free spirit. They consider the good of the masses to be greater than the law. He avoids authority but doesn't strive for anarchy. Robin Hood is trying to level the playing field.

Answer 7

but in the time frame, the rich got rich off the taxes of the hard working poor people.

Answer 8

Well, your mistake is in assuming they worked for their riches, when really it's far, far more likely they simply inherited it all and were sitting on their duffs doing nothing to improve the conditions of the poor around them.

So it's a justice thing with him.

Answer 9

what if he gave it to the people that worked thier butts off and got nothing, I would be okay with that. but if he robbed the rich to give it to a bunch of poor folks that just sat there expecting it, and not tried do work, I;d be a little pissed.

Answer 10

Good, of course. He fought an evil, corrupt system for the benefit of those who were oppressed by this system. Stick it to the man, Robin!