When someone utters the name: Robin Hood and almost immediately people will conjure up images of the green-clad archer of Sherwood Forest, or the commendable robber who steals from the wealthy to provide to the poor, and in a deeper sense, a guy who will endure injustice and tyranny during the period that historians classify as the Middle Age groups. Robin Hood is looked at by many as a hero. When looking at this idea through the philosophical viewpoint, there are definitely more things to consider. Should people actually regard him as a hero? If so, don't we've some sort of an responsibility as a modern culture to look upon people who take whatever the reason behind their activities may be as nothing more than a thief who's blight on world? On the other hand, is it satisfactory to consider him a hero because he's helping those who are deemed less lucky in society and therefore making society better all together? Upon using the ideas of Mills, and Kant it is this authors judgment that indeed Robin Hood though his actions aren't the most morally ideal, he is breaking laws and regulations that eventually were created by wealthy men and done so to almost all of the time to protect themselves and their fortune. Philosophically speaking, what Robin Hood does was help the greater good of many at the trouble of a few and as a result society as a whole improved.
Before diving in and explaining this further one must look at the three philosophers and their ideas and compare these to the folk hero himself. John Stuart Mill's notion of utilitarianism can be considered as the idea of greatest happiness. Just like the folk hero Robin Hoods activities, it could be referred to as that that a person has a work to always action so he/she can attain the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. Among Mill's major suggestions to the concept of utilitarianism is the fact he argues for the group over the average person. When looking at Robin Hood, while he's stealing, he's doing this for the higher good of many instead of the individual (generally, Robin Hood steals from the Sheriff of Nottingham). But there is a difference between what Mills argues than that of say Jeremy Bentham. Bentham argues that all phases of pleasure as indeed identical. Mills will argue that pleasures produced from thinking and that of moral fibers can be viewed as superior to those pleasures that are in the physical characteristics. Mills also argues that pleasure can be viewed as of higher value than that of contentment. This can be considered one part where Mills might have a problem using what Robin Hood does. Mill's idea of being morally correct and having that resulting in happiness can lead a lot of people to think that he would not need approved at Robin Hoods actions.
Mill's meaning of the difference between joy of a higher and lower nature coupled with the theory that those who have seen and been a part of both have a tendency to favor one in the other. Quite simply, Mill's will argue is that it is the simple pleasures of life that individuals tend to choose when they have no experience with something such as art or a particular date at a museum and are because of this, these people aren't able to make any kind of distinction between your two. That is something that can connect with Robin Hood as the people that he steals from certainly have a good idea about museums and fine art and the ones who he provides his stolen products to certainly prefer the simple pleasures in life such as being able to eat a complete meal or have some location to sleep. While Mills is certainly distinguishing two sets of people, he's remembering about the people that can be viewed as poor in his writing. So that it can be argued that while morally he will not totally agree with Robin Hood's way of being, when looking as of this writing, he will speak about the delight for the higher good and there are some people who choose the simple pleasures in life. These folks, who choose the simple pleasures, are those who Robin Hood helps the most although he may not fit into Mills idea of moral ambiguity. It should be noted that, Mills certainly have advocated mailing the indegent to colleges to get an education and he thought that education would then qualify them to have significantly more affect in say government but lets not forget that at that time that Robin Hood supposedly lived, there is a rigid category system and it was enjoy it was today where folks have ways through federal government programs to make that happen which means this idea of his argument does not really apply here and therefore one must go back to the simple writings of Mills of contentment for the greater group and the easy pleasures that the indegent during this time period to apply the thought of Robin Hood and whether he's right or incorrect. When taking all factors into consideration it is the argument of this author that he'd have seen Robin Hood as somebody who does good work.
When taking a gander at Immanuel Kant, he tends to argue that people occupy a particular place in the thought of creation, and his definition of morality can best be defined as that there is a legislation of reason that create all of humans responsibilities and obligations. In other words, there's a reason that people do things that they do and sometimes the reasons can be really simple. He requires this one step further by arguing that anything important as any proven fact that declares a certain action to be necessary. Among this can be described as: if someone is thirsty, they need to have something to drink to make that thirst go away. Well, when looking at the idea and actions of an Robin Hood, he quenches the thirst of those who are thirsty. He feeds those who find themselves hungry. He takes care of those who are less fortunate and does indeed so using Kant's definition of morality since there is grounds that creates his duty and obligation (this is above). It ought to be noted however, that he also talks about a categorical essential which, on the other hands, denotes a complete, unconditional necessity that asserts its authority in all circumstances. "It is best known in its first formulation:
"Function only according compared to that maxim whereby you can at exactly the same time will that it should become a widespread legislations. " This last idea is where Kant might have a difficulty with the actions of Robin Hood. Certainly, stealing will never become universal laws, but this begs to ask the question, is feeding someone who is regarded as an outcast from world because they don't really believe in the laws created by someone who is ruthless and attempts to weed out those who don't trust him wrong? Let's not forget that laws are created by man himself and usually those laws and regulations are created to benefit those who make sure they are. They are not made out of everyone in mind. That is why the idea of universal regulation can be certainly considered biased. They are made with the idea that they advantage those who are making them without thinking about how they have an impact on the "little people" of modern culture. That is who Robin Hood considers; those who are not taken into consideration when laws are created. That is why he can be viewed as "a man of the common people. "
Kant was known for his major unhappiness with those moral philosophies which were considered popular during his time; because he believed that it could never pass the amount of being hypothetical. A concept such as that a utilitarian says that eliminating someone is indeed wrong since it will not create the most best for the most amount of people. But this notion doesn't relate with someone who doesn't value the higher good of the group and is only concerned with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves including the Sheriff of Nottingham. Because of this, Kant argues that the idea of hypothetical moral systems cannot influence people's moral actions or be searched upon as moral judgments against different people.
While both Kant and Mills wouldn't normally totally be up to speed, so to speak with just how that Robin Hood conducted his lifestyle, it would be safe to dispute that the majority of their writings pertain to the thought of what Robin Hood symbolizes. Robin Hood proved people that sometimes an otherwise wrong deed reaches times a good thing. Or in simpler conditions, sometimes stealing isn't necessarily wrong, particularly when justified by valuable ideal like the greater good of the group or when laws and regulations are made by man for the advantage of the few in culture, a concept that continues to be very prevalent today all around the globe. Some consider Robin Hood an outlaw, this creator considers him a person who experienced the courage to stand up to those who could not stand up for themselves and often was banished by contemporary society. He is struggling what can be considered a class warfare during the DARK AGES and it definitely is a concept that almost a millennium later, we remain struggling as a society. Maybe some things will never change.
