Should one do wrong, but for a good reason? For example Robin hood stole food for the poor?

Answer 1

I do not believe you can do wrong for a good reason. Either you are correcting an inherent wrong, which is good; or you are deluding yourself and actually doing wrong.

Take Robin Hood - if you are talking about food that would otherwise be wasted to be redistributed to those who are starving, the real wrong is the system which set up the inadequate food distribution in the first place - not Robin Hood. This is the same as Gandhi performing acts of civil disobedience to fight the corrupt system the British put in place. However, to fight the system with violence is wrong, because violence is inherently wrong. Robin Hood could not justify slaughtering nobles to get their food for redistribution.

That is why non-violent disobedience was so important to Gandhi - he showed you CAN fight immoral (wrong) corruption with moral (good) ways to reach an equitable solution (reason). Gandhi was also adamant, and for him it was an absolute - doing immoral acts is ALWYAS more immoral than the reason the act was done to begin with. Therefore, according to Gandhi, it is impossible to do wrong for a good reason. If you do wrong, it is for the wrong reason.

Answer 2

I wouldn't use Robin Hood as an example, but the answer is yes, absolutely. Just remember that there could still be consequences.

Suppose you steal the car keys from a drunk person, and then lie to them when they ask if you took them. Did you take someone elses belongings? Did you lie? Yes, but it was the right thing to do. Maybe they will be angry with you later. You may even lose a friendship. But, it was still right.

Suppose you see a man raping a woman, and in stopping the rape, you use deadly force against him. Did you kill a man? Yes, but it was also right.

Right and wrong are concepts that are subject to time, place, and circumstance. An action cannot be definitively right or wrong in all times, places, and circumstances. Even good is not always good. Suppose you give a homeless person some money. You are thinking you are doing some good by giving charity. But, if that person walks around the corner and purchases heroin, what was the good? You wasted your money, and he was not nourished in any way. Not only that, but it was your money that contributed to his addiction, and the perpetuation of the violent drug trade. Your contribution was doing no good whatsoever.

Answer 3

Depends on the situation. The means must be proportional to the ends. In the case of Robin Hood he was just takeing back what had been stolen from the peasants for the benifit of no one but the nobles ( I think it was to pay a ransom for richard, but I'm not sure). In such a case there was certainly nothing morally wrong with takeing it, however the degree of force used to retake it would be relevant to the moral analysis. Injury might be okay, but to kill to recliam it? That might depend on the level of hardship the peasants faced, ie. if they would starve without it.
Moral decisions require an anlysis of all the factors, it is too simplistic to just have a "good reason."

Answer 4

Is there a limit to the degree of wrong? Did you have an exchange planned?
What would be a "good reason" to lie? To steal? To murder?
Would government would define the parameters of what constitutes a “good reason”? If so, which branch? Federal? State? Local?
Throughout history, people have believed the end justifies their means. Osama Bin Laden is a recent example; he believes he has to kill Americans for a VERY good reason. Who decides if he is right or wrong?
Our own President (along with his advisors) took Americans to war in retaliation for the attacks of our citizens. He believes he has a Very good reason for his decision. Would every American agree? Is it still a good reason if only some of the people think it is?
Is it possible for the justification to change over time? Would there be some sort of grace period if public opinion changed on an issue?
The bottom line is right is right and wrong is wrong and two wrongs will never make a right.

Answer 5

Robin Hood's existance is still under debate, and if he did exist, he still had himself as #1 and fought to keep it that way. Jesse James of the outlaw type, after the Civil War, did steal from the rich and gave to the poor (at least one incidence in McKinney Texas, rich employer had thanksgiving feast and Jesse and his gang came in and literally grabbed the food off the table, dishes and silverware and all, threw it on the back of a buckboard and took it to several starving families in McKinney) but the James boys did do murdering, too, and refused to accept the end of the war, and fought Federal soldiers.

Always do the good; let God handle the wrongs in His own way.

030607 6:55

Answer 6

Robinhood is a bad example. Robin hood stole from the rich and probably kept it. i think that people who do wrong for "the greater good" are still wrong

Answer 7

Wasn't Robin Hood a fictional character?

Answer 8

No. One should look for the "right" way to do what ever needs to be done to get the same result.

Answer 9

"Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reason". But are you prepared for the consequences your actions will bring?

Answer 10

it depends on the situation....if it's for your own personal gain....you need to think twice. If it's really for the benefit of someone else...and it's not going to hurt anyone or anything....than perhaps.