English, asked by tanny75, 2 months ago

Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor. What is your opinion about this course
of action?​

Answers

Answered by medagamersweb
1

Answer:

good I think

Explanation:

Answered by sofisajad777
0

Answer:

This question poses property rights against community rights. And that dichotomy is, on the one hand, at the heart of a huge number of social problems, and on the other hand very culturally determined.

There is not doubt that we need both community rights and property rights. Nor is there any doubt that they come fundamentally into conflict. The problem is that there is no right answer as to how to trade off.

Man is absolutely a community animal, homo socialis. As I have often said on Quora, working together in large, intelligent, groups is human’s special talent. Moles dig, eagles soar, cheetahs run, sharks bit - and humans cooperate. And that means giving up some things for the common good. Not, as libertarians would have it, just refraining from harming others, but positively helping others without expecting immediate payment. We should all expect to put into the common pot, and realize that if some people take out more then they put in, the opposite must be true for others. And it should be do, because community is a win-win scenario. The benefits of community are (in a healthy community) such that even those who put in more than they get out of the common pot are benefited by the community gain. And, of course, none of us knows when we may have to make an unexpected withdrawal from the common pot.

On the other hand, on purely pragmatic ground, property is a necessary concept. Interestingly, not so much for nomadic tribes. If all that you have has to be carried on your backs or on pack animals, you cannot have that much and there is usually little point in stealing more than you can eat at the moment. (And hence the importance to such tribes of self moving property i.e. livestock).

But as soon as you have fixed assets, like fields, you have a need for property. because it is easier to steal somebody else’s crops than to grow your own. And if you can manage both you are doubly content. And if you have fixed houses, you can have more clothes than you wear all the time. The concepts of special clothes and finery come in. And luxuries of all sorts. And such things are, of course, stealable. The concept of war, as opposed to minor squabbles between nomadic groups, appeared as soon as people stopped moving long enough to accumulate “stuff”. To avoid war you need a consensus as to who has a “right” to something and the converse, who definitely does not.

And there is, of course, always the basic argument that if I make something by my own efforts, surely I have the right to enjoy the fruits of those efforts - it is not mine?

There is no solution to this paradox. Different cultures set the “sweet spot” at different places. Robin Hood is good if he is moving the actual balance towards the accepted sweet spot and bad if he is moving away.

On the other hand, Robin Hood uses, or threatens, violence. And violence is always bad. It requires an awful lot of good to offset that bad. So far worse than the stealing is the violence

Similar questions