Yesterday I and David were talking about how to judge people are morally wrong; moreover, we have an example that if we steal stuffs from wealthy people in order to donate to poor people so is it morally wrong? Like a Robinhood. Is he morally wrong?
Please feel welcome to comment, especially Peter.
For me.. I think it's wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlthought he did for poor people but stealth is absolutely wrong.
Example, do you know "white lie"?? You lie someone but results are in good way, It's not mean you don't lie. And you think lie is right or wrong?
In the same way, Robinhood steals stuff for help poor people doesn't mean he does not steal.
And another case, mother has a baby but she doesn't have enought money to pay for feed her baby, so she steals milk from the shop. Is she right or wrong?
I still answer, it's wrong.
According to Buddhism, If you steal or lie in every case, it absolutely wrong.
In my point of view, we should divide these topic into two idea.
ReplyDelete1. He is morally right or wrong
2. He has right to do or not.
For Orn example (October 30, 2010 10:21 AM) For white lie, I infer from the context that right or wrong in that sentence should be wrong to do not morally wrong. Am I misunderstand?
In addition, for the first question, morally right or wrong depends on the purpose of thief; for example, Robinhood is morally right because his purpose is he want to help poor people not to benefit himself but he has no right to do it. Therefore, it doesn't confirm that morally right is the right thing to do.
For last example, it's completely wrong in both ways for me. Although, she doesn't benefit herself but she steals to benefit her blood. It different from Robinhood that he did for poor people. However, if I were that mother, I would do in the same way with her.
According to Net’s questions (October 30, 2010 10:57 AM), my answers are that he is wrong and he has no right to do.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, robbing is not right thing even though you do to help someone because normally, it makes some negative effects on people who are robbed.
In case of Robin Hood, he does well to help the poor, but he has no right to rob the rich. From the novel, I inferred that Robin Hood thinks the rich get the money from the wrong way that looks like robbing money from the poor. Robin dislikes this way, but he uses this way which is robbing to revenge these people. Robin knows this is wrong way to do, but he does. It means that he does a wrong thing which is immoral and illegal.
I'm very pleased to see you continuing a healthy argument here. Please feel very welcome to continue.
ReplyDeleteNet and David's question reminds me of the two different types of moral thinking that I wanted to make us aware of by introducing the trolley problem.
The first is consequentalist thinking, which says that things are right or wrong according to the consequences, so if something is for the greater good, it is morally good and the right thing to do. People who think this is what morality is about would pull the lever and push the fat man. For consequentalists, Robin Hood was a good guy because he stole from rich people and gave to the poor, which increased the value, happiness, use of the money in society. THis is exactly the same reasoning behind communism and socialism - that it's OK to steal from some people and give it to others because that makes a happier, more successful, healthier society as a result. And government health schemes, such as THailand's free health cover for everyone, government old age pensions schemes and so on, are exactly the same: they are stealing money from some people to give it to people who don't have as much. When governments do it, it is legal, but it's exactly the same as what Robin Hood does. When governments tax rich people like Bill Gates and give his money to poor black kids in slums, they are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. So, if we think that Robin Hood is morally wrong to do that, we should also agree that every government that does the same thing is also morally wrong.
The other way of looking at moral issues is deontological thinking. (Deontic is the only form listed in the OALD, and not with its meaning in moral philosophy. It's a little technical). Unlike consequentalism, deontology says that acts are right or wrong because of that they are in themselves, not because of the consequences. Deontologists would argue that it is wrong to push the fat man off the bridge even though the consequences would be much better for society since five lives would be saved exactly the same as when we pull the lever to divert the train and kill one worker.
Part 2 follows (It was a bit too long to post as a single comment).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteOrn and Gift are deontologists. Orn for sure, although I'm not 100% sure about Gift, since her reason also included as support that "it makes some negative effects on people who are robbed" October 30, 2010 11:02 PM, ¶ 2). They argue that stealing is wrong even if the results are good. They definitely think that Robin Hood was doing something morally wrong, and they presumably also think that government taxes on the rich to help the poor are also morally wrong, even if that makes society better. It certainly does not hurt Bill Gates or any other really rich person to take some of his great wealth and give it to poor families who need it.
I like Gift's last paragraph, where she raises what seems to me a very relevant point: that the money Robin Hood was stealing might not have been fairly and morally acquired. That is why I think that Robin Hood was right to take from some people and give to others. If their money was not fairly obtained, the rich had no moral right to it (although it might have been perfectly legal). And if the rich had actually gotten their money unjustly by taking it from the poor, perhaps via legal government taxes, which is exactly the case in Robin Hood - everything the evil king and sheriff did was perfectly legal - then it was illegal but morally right for Robin Hood to steal it back from the rich to return it to the poor. My reason for thinking that this is the right thing to do is not that the poor need it or that the consequences will be good (although I'm sure they will be), but that the rich never had any moral right to the money in the first place. If walk into a bank and steal a million Baht, it is right for the police to take that money from me because I did not get it in any fair and just way.
On the other hand, Bill Gates got all of his money justly, even more so movie stars, so taxing them to provide free education, health care, pensions and the like can not be morally right. (Sorry, I couldn't help adding this to be a little controversial.)
Sometimes in level 6 we read the introductory chapter of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, where he makes a very strong case for the consequentalist theory called utilitarianism and some moral principles that follow from it.
ReplyDeleteIf your theories are true and we have to stand obviously in only side, I will be the one who's confusing myself because I believe that pull the lever is the right thing to do; however, put the fat man off is completely wrong for me.
ReplyDeleteFor Peter example, I think the purpose between the government old age pensions and 30Baht for every disease in Thailand are different. As we know, 30Baht for every disease used money from Tax; however, things is, the money from the pension is a kind of bonus and the salary of the government official is too low and they don't have bonus, compare with other jobs. Besides, they have to work for government at least 25 years to get that money, how persevere are they before get that money; as a result, they are not in the consequentalist thinking theory.
What kind of theory do I suit for?
Net,
ReplyDeletePhilippa Foot's 1967 essay introduced the trolley problem to help clarify the morally relevant elements in deciding what to do.
Although I used it to argue against consequentalist moral principles, that was not Foot's original purpose, nor is that all it can help us to clarify. Most people would pull the lever to divert teh train, whereas those some people, like you, would not push the fat man. Although I'm a bit worried about it, I'm inclined to agree. But if you think pulling the lever to divert teh train is OK, whilst pushing the fat man is not, you need to give a morally relevant reason - "it's my gut feeling" is not very satisfactory, and consequentalist reasons just won't work, since they would say that if you pull the lever you must also push the fat man.
I expected most people to have the same reaction you did, which would hopefully push them to look for morally relevant reasons that could justify pulling the lever, but refusing to push the fat man because it was morally wrong. Looking at extreme examples can help us to more clearly formulate the principles that can then be used to decide difficult cases in real life, like whether smoking should be banned by law in all restaurants, or whether it's OK to kill some people to save others.
In the two trolley problem situations, I think that there is a morally relevant difference: in the first, pulling the lever is a tool used to bring about a desirable end, which is also known to have an awful consequence (killing the one man on the other track).
How might the second situation, with teh fat man on the bridge, be significantly different?
I need to clarify my comments about the pensions. If it's part of an agreed deal with an employer, who happens to be the state, that's not a problem - private companies can do exactly the same for their employees.
ReplyDeleteI had in mind old age pensions and the like given to people just because they are old and perhaps poor. In the US and most western countries, it is normal for the state to provide such charity to the unemployed, the old, and sick and so on. This is what seems to me very much like, exactly like, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
No, Peter I think that it is not same even the consequence of Robin Hood activities and welfare seem like. Yes, I might concern process more than consequence. I the reason and process why govern distribution value in society are completely different with Robin Hood. While Robin Hood concern about fair or unfair, right or wrong, equal or un equal, pity or not, Government distribute wealth of society to keep the stability of state(Statist), keep the minimal labor’s lives(Marxist), or keep the social function(socialist). Moreover, the ploys of government role on acceptance of citizens and if citizens do not appropriate, the can move to another state or protest policies; in contrast, No one can defy, protest or proof Robin Hood’s. Therefore, I think that it really different and cannot compare.
ReplyDeleteI might be anti-hedonistic. I like the reason of state which can measure more than the feeling of Robin Hood which only is the great happiness in the quality term of Mill.
I like Poome's objections, which are real and need to be addressed, although they also raise further issues that will complicate the discussion. This is how essays tend to become longer than we thought that they would be at the start - it is often necessary to address objections and ideas that we had not initially thought of.
ReplyDeleteI'll start with Poome's last point, that "No one can defy, protest or proof Robin Hood’s." This seems wrong to me because people can and really do protest against crime - they write letters to papers, demand more government action, just as they protest government policy, and even appeal to the criminals to stop. People also defy such criminals by organizing neighbourhood watch schemes and the like. Finally, linking with Poome's idea that a difference is that with a state people can move to another state if they are not happy, people do in fact move to areas where crime is believed to be lower and life safer - Robin Hood's victims could have moved away from their homes in the Nottingham and Sherwood Forest area, and they could have organized self-protection for themselves against him, and they could have protested against his stealing. People did not leave Nottingham because their homes were there, and they do not leave nasty, dictatorial states, or states with whose policies they disagree, because there homes are there, and sometimes those states do not let people leave, for example Burma, and even if people do want to escape from Burma, their neighbours in Thailand are not very welcoming.
Part II follows - I think it's going to get a bit longer.
Part II
ReplyDeletePoome also mentioned Socialism, Marxism and Statism. Statism is similar to Robin Hood since he too had as an aim to maintain the stability of the local society that was under threat by the actions of the unjust state, whose excuse for it's evil laws was John's desire to "to keep the stability of state" with himself and the sheriff as rulers. Both were stealing from some to give to others: the state stole from the poor to give to the rich, and especially the king, who would use the money to pay for an army to keep keep the people enslaved, much as happens in Burma today; Robin Hood stole from the rich and the evil King John to protect the stability of the local society that was threatened by the unjust laws.
I would agree that Marxist states have a different motive to Robin Hood, who does not appear to have been concerned to maintain minimum wages or any such thing. However, that is a motive, and not what the act is. The Marxist motive for stealing is to ensure fair pay for work (actually, I don't agree that this is Marxist theory, but it's close enough). Nonetheless, when Marxists tax people, they are still stealing in order to redistribute wealth, and whatever the motive, the act is still stealing. As Orn reminds us, even a mother stealing to feed her starving child is nonetheless stealing. That there can be a wide range of motives for an act does not normally change the act into something else, it just means that there can be many different reasons for doing the same thing: some people murder for money, some for love (more common than money), some for revenge, and so on, but they are all equally murderers. The trouble with Marxism is that it is as evil in principle as it has always proved in practice.
Socialism sounds a little better than Marxism, and is very popular, but that does not make it right, unless you hold a moral theory which says that popularity is what makes something morally right or wrong (close to moral relativism), in which case you would have to argue that some very nasty things, such as Hitler's torture and murder of Jews, was morally right if popular with the people.
I think my main objection to Poome's ideas is that even in a democracy, the fact that a large majority want something does not make it right, but can only make it popular. 90% of the citizens might vote to steal from Bill Gates, but they are still thieves committing an injustice. Just because it's popular and legal does not, and I think cannot, make something morally right and just. That is why a strong constitution is needed: not only to protect against corrupt politicians, but to protect the people from well-intentioned and very popular policies by the government and people that violate human rights.
Poome,
ReplyDeleteAnother thought has just occurred to me. In your courses, you have clearly studied a range of different philosophical approaches to how any state and its power might be justified.
Have you also studied the very powerful answers provided by John Rawls, mainly as set out in his book A Theory of Justice (1971, revised 1999)? Although I think there are flaws in his theory, it is nonetheless a very powerful and intuitively compelling answer to the question of why a state may legitimately do such things as tax the rich to help the poor, and even enact such things as affirmative action legislation. (It would probably also seem to give a solid basis for treating Robin Hoods as relevantly different to states, which I think you wanted to do.)
If you are not already familiar with them, you might like to check Rawl's ideas on justice and the state.