What is Robin Hood an example of?

Robin Hood is considered one of the best-known tales of English folklore. In popular culture, the term “Robin Hood” is often used to describe a heroic outlaw or rebel against tyranny….

What makes human act good or bad?

6), human acts derive their species from the end or from the object. But every object and every end has the character of goodness or the character of badness. Therefore, every human act is either good by its species or bad by its species. Therefore, no human act is indifferent by its species.

How did Robin Hood help the poor?

Robin Hood was a philanthropist who robbed the rich to give to the poor. It was the Scottish historian John Major who in 1521 wrote that “[Robin] permitted no harm to women, nor seized the goods of the poor, but helped them generously with what he took from abbots”.

What are Robin Hood’s weaknesses?

Weaknesses

• No criteria to join the fight against the Sheriff.
• Robin Hood didn’t know half of the men he encountered.
• He didn’t know how to discipline.
• unable to manage finances during expansion.
• Taxing his allies.
• Putting things off until tomorrow.

Was Robin Hood a hero or a villain?

Robin Hood, legendary outlaw hero of a series of English ballads, some of which date from at least as early as the 14th century.

Is Robin Hood true?

Robin Hood was a real person Robin (or Robert) Hood (aka Hod or Hude) was a nickname given to petty criminals from at least the middle of the 13th century – it may be no coincidence that Robin sounds like ‘robbing’ – but no contemporary writer refers to Robin Hood the famous outlaw we recognise today.

Is Robin Hood a good example of good will?

Robin Hood’s actions would satisfy notions of Kant’s ‘good will’ as they are directly acting out a moral obligation by assisting those in need: nevertheless, the act of robbing a person is using that person as a ‘means’ to produce a result, when according to Kantian theory, people should only ever be used as ‘ends’.

How does Robin Hood deal with suffering?

Robin Hood simultaneously deals with the real problems of the real people around him while still going after the ultimate goal. Human suffering is not an abstract. To turn away from real, immediate suffering because it won’t solve the “big picture” is immoral. Disclaimer: I just skimmed a bunch of Wikipedia articles and old stories.

Does Robin Hood represent a consistent moral/ethical philosophy?

Because of this, Robin Hood isn’t really meant to represent a consistent moral/ethical philosophy, but rather he’s a consequence of iterative reformations.

Is robbing the rich for the poor moral?

Indeed, literally robbing from the rich to give to the poor is very temporary relief. But it is relief from crushing poverty, and that is moral. But you neglect that while he’s doing this Robin Hood is also working on a more permanent solution: overthrowing the corrupt ruler and restoring a just one.