8/14/2019 Thinking about sad things - Robin Hood

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thinking-about-sad-things-robin-hood 1/2

Thinking About Sad Things: Robin Hood

Do you remember the story of Robin Hood? There have

been more than one “made in Hollywood” movies 

produced on this historical figure (a recent summary of

one can be found here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0955308/)  Therefore, I

imagine that even my younger readers are familiar with

the story and “hero”. 

My intention here is not to do a movie or book review,

but to comment on some changes that have become

apparent to me over the recent years. I remembered

the story of Robin Hood a few months ago after reading

the article entitled “Explaining Socialism To A

Republican”  written by Nurse Pam:

(http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/11/explaining-

socialism-to-a-republican/). It’s an excellent

commentary on current politics and Democratic Socialism including the tendencies and

discussions about healthcare in the USA. What this article got me to thinking is how our values

and feelings may change over time, particularly as to the context of the Robin Hood story, its

ideas and implied values.

So, back to my opening question: granted that you remember the story, what do you think

about Robin Hood? I mean deep down in the land of “black and white”: Was he a “good guy” 

or a thief?

Trying to go back to when I first heard the story and remember my thoughts and impressions,

it seems that I considered Robin Hood to be a good guy. Admittedly, retrospection like this is

generally subjective and may be just out right wrong, but what I want to emphasize now is that

I still consider him and his way of acting (except for the violence) and goals as good and

desirable. That is “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor” is good and acceptable.

When I say, “stealing”, certainly I don’t mean “armed robbery”, as in Robin Hood’s manner and

time. Rather, I mean that in a “civilized” and peacefully way, wealth redistribution by taking

from the rich and giving to the poor is not only good, but also socially desirable.

For me, it was interesting to try and think back as to how I came to feel this way, even at a

rather young age. Was it brought about by my religious bible school training? Or did it come

from the charitable and generous personality of my mother. Certainly, it didn’t come from the

conservative aspects of my father's beliefs, but then he did believe in being charitable, even if

he was not excessively generous. But for sure, I was not taught that Robin Hood was an

outright thief and “bad” guy.

But now-a-days, try and describe the story to an average American, but change the name from

Robin Hood to Clyde, for example. What kind of response would we probably get? I expect it

might be something like that expressed in the original article that brought up this subject:

8/14/2019 Thinking about sad things - Robin Hood

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thinking-about-sad-things-robin-hood 2/2

“OMG you want to rob from the rich and give it all to the poor!” . So has there really been this

change in middle class America’s consideration (or should I say: inconsideration) of the poor?

Without making a detailed search, and based only on my feelings and readings, I believe that

while America’s “WASP’s have become financially richer (and many maybe poorer) they’ve

become more selfish too. And then there is the big increase in immigrates, and the

competition for jobs.

Did you notice the name “Clyde” above? I explicitly choose that name to remind me to bring

up the difference between the goals of Robin Hood and the famous thieving couple, Bonnie

and Clyde. What makes for the difference in our feelings and sympathies between the two

stories? Obviously, Robin Hood wanted to help the poor, and Bonnie and Clyde were just an

extraordinarily greedy and violent pair of thieves. So then, I ask you: Does this difference imply

that the “ends” justify the “means”?

Before going on, I'd like to take wars and politics in a general sense out of my writing focus for

now. I'll probably come back to these topics soon enough. In trying to answer my previous

question, my “WASP” upbringing, as taught to me by my parents and schools, would lead me

to say NO. And if it involves violence, I still would say emphatically: NO. But as in the case of

wealth redistribution by taxing the rich more to improve the lives of the poor, I would

definitely say YES. Even the general American population (those sympathetic to the Tea Party

excepted) would agree. The concept of a progressive income tax, where the more you earn,

the more you should pay in taxes seems generally well consolidated among the American

taxpayer.

It seems to me at least, that there’s a need to clarify much better and then discuss America’s

values and change the country’s focus from “Individual Rights” to Human or “Societies Rights”. 

Just to complete this part of my writings, I did a quick Google search with the words:

"Nietzsche, Ethics, does the end justify the means", and came up with 230 000 links to try and

find an answer! Some of the first links that come up and which seem, to me at least,

worthwhile for further study are:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism (This link is the first one to appear

in the Google search. It seems to be a very good please to start further study on

the question of "means and ends". And note, it is not limited to

"Consequentialism", but discusses other philosophical options and variations.)

  http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2276/accepted-interpretation-of-

machiavellis-the-ends-justify-the-means  (This link seems to be not so directly

linked to the above discussion, but I did find it interesting.)

  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/  (Obs.: this link really

requires slow and attentive reading and reflection. Don't know if I'm up to reading

all of it, but the Stanford site does seem very useful for those who want to go

further into this subject.)

Without going into any more detail on these concepts of right and wrong, individual or

collective rights, suffice it to say, I'll be coming back and discussing them in the future.

David C. MeissnerTuesday, Nov. 5, 2013