Is it morally right...?

Alright, so essentially the question is: Is it morally right to be "robin hood"? I.e. steal from the poor, give to the rich?

Now what if for example robin hood also took some of the money to live off of? So basically he robbed and stole, took what he needed to live comfortably, and gave the rest away because he didn't need it. Is the answer the same?

 

steal from poor, give to rich or steal from rich give to poor?

 

Steal from the rich, and give to the poor =]

 

robin hood in fact did keep a small sum for himself, hence his ability to pay for arrows, food and clothing.

to the topic of theft, the rich have insurance for their possessions, why not steal to help someone less fortunate.

 

Alright, so the questions become one

and in that case, you're still stealing - just from the insurance company this time though.

 

Who's money comes from grants and loans from other countries, essentially you're stealing drug dealers money, circle of currency.

 

Where does that make any sense? Insurance money doesn't come from drug dealers, it comes from a ton of people just paying a monthly/yearly/weekly/whatever fee in order to cover for themselves if something unfortunate were to happen.

 

You're claiming drug dealers don't have insurance?

 

They certainly don't have insurance for stolen drugs and other similar mishaps >.<

 

They still have property damage for their estate, they're going to buy nice items with their drug money, they're going to insure them, cars, houses, jewelry, etc.

It's the entire cycle of currency, essentially you're always going to be stealing from someone but what harm is it to give a little something to someone less fortunate who may need it more.

 

You don't know if they need it more. And regardless, your justification for stealing is that SOME of the money that you steal will be made by drug dealers?

Besides, the insurance companies themselves don't deal drugs. Just because some of the fees that the companies receive are from drug dealers, that makes the whole company illegitimate?

 

Essentially most insurance companies are some way funded by the government, you're mainly stealing from the government who gets their money from foreign loans. Sure some of the money comes from drug dealers but the majority comes from another country.

The robin hood theory you've questioned provides he gave the money to people he knew needed it, people who couldn't afford food, clothes, medicine.

Why should someone suffer, incapable of providing needed medicine to someone in need because they don't have the funds to support it?

 

Either way - you're then stealing from another country. That doesn't get rid of the fact that you're stealing.

And how would you know that the money robin hood gives actually goes to people who need it, and not drug addicts on foodstamps who still somehow find money to buy cocaine?

 

If we're stealing from other countries, who cares. The primary concern is taking care of our own (Americans).

I've seen robin hood.

 

The robin hood reference was in general - as applied to real life.

And even if you need to take care of yourself, if you steal from another country that's still someone you're screwing over, or the other country that you're screwing over. And either way, the insurance companies/the US will have to repay that stolen money. So while the source of the money is another country, the US has still borrowed it and will need to repay it.

 

I'd say it could be justified morally but it isn't 100% morally right doing so. To minimize the guilt etc the Robin Hood individual would need to hunt for a target that has so much money they don't now what to do with it so that the person they steal from does not become the new poor person and the poor become the rich people.

 

Not when the US is billions in debt, there's no way of paying these countries back. Essentially, you're stealing free money to help someone who needs it more. It's an endless concept of supply and demand. The poor demand (need) the money and the rich supply an endless amount of currency protected by the insurance > protected by the government > supplied by other countries.

If you have a tree of oranges, knowingly the oranges will grow back when picked, you have no food, will you not pick the oranges off the tree?

Not the rich of the richest, just the rich. Regardless their money is protected by insurance.

 

Assuming that they made their money in a capitalistic society I would say they stole their money off someone else. When it comes to money morality is out of the window in modern society.

 

I'm not too familiar with the robin hood storyline, but I remember it to be a stry of a person who steals what was immorally attained by rich people and returned it to the poor.

If that was so, then the rich person is not legally in possesion of that item. Thus, it would nit be considered community service and not stealing and thus, there would be no problems with morality.
Except for the part where the rich person might be upset at his loss.

But if it were the story of a man who went around stealing from rich people who worked hard for their money, there would be a problem. They were legally entitled to possesion of their items, and Robin just popped in and stole it to give to people whom he had compassion for.

Think about it, how woud you feel if some nut hacked your account and gave your valuables away to poor nubs in runescape?

 

Has it ever been morally "right" to steal from someone? No.