Model Essay Exam Answer

Question: Oscar has decided to form a "Robin Hood" gang that robs the rich (or at least the well-off) to give to the poor, keeping some for the gang, too. Evaluate Oscar's conduct from the following points of view: Sociological, subjectivist, Aristotle's, utilitarianism (Moore’s), and Kant's morality.

Answer: In the sociological view, something is morally right if most people approve of it. It is always a problem to say which "most people," but we will assume most that means most people who live within a few hundred miles of Oscar. Without out knowing what they think, we cannot answer this question in detail, but we can say that if an accurate opinion poll shows the majority approves of Oscar's gang, then what he is doing is right.

In the subjectivist view, some action is right if the person who does it approves of it. Assuming Oscar approves what he is doing, his action is right.

According to Aristotle, there are two aspects to justice, lawfulness and fairness. Fairness is about distribution of honors or wealth and putting wrong transfers (like theft, adultery, murder) right. The just distribution is the one which is proportional to each person’s worth or to what he deserves. If there are poor people who are worthy (i.e., virtuous) or there are unworthy rich people, then Oscar’s aim to redistribute wealth would be just, but that does not mean his method—stealing from the rich--is just. Stealing from the rich is unlawful, and therefore unjust. Law is a part of justice, and whatever is lawful is just in some sense. Also, if Oscar is trying to become a ruler, then he should not be trying to benefit himself, because just rulers do not do that. So it would be unjust and hence wrong to become a Robin Hood for Aristotle.

According to utilitarianism, the right thing to do is that action, among those which a person could do if he chose, which would produced the greatest total pleasure minus pain, taking into account everyone who is effected by that action or any other action that could be done instead. It difficult to say whether a utilitarian would approve Oscar's conduct. Redistributing wealth so that the poor have more and the rich less would probably raise the total utility that comes from wealth, since people who have less income are more efficient at converting a dollar of wealth or income into utility—utilitarianism has a tendency toward equality. Being Robin Hood is not the only way to redistribute wealth, however--political action might work better. Large-scale robbery will produce a considerable amount of pain (negative utility), maybe shootouts, deaths, people going to prison, etc. It also tends to set a bad example and may increase the incidence of robbery that is not of the Robin Hood sort. If there is some other way to increase the utility of income without these negative utility factors, that Oscar's conduct is not right.

For Kant's view, we need to apply the form of the categorical imperative that says that if it is not rational for you to make your maxim (personal policy for acting) into a universal law of nature that is followed by everyone, then it is not morally right for you to act on your maxim. Oscar's maxim would be "I steal from the rich to give to the poor (and myself, too)". It looks like it would be impossible to make this maxim into a universal law that says "everyone steals from the rich to give to the poor (and themselves)." It would be impossible, since if everyone does this all the time, there will not be any rich people any more, so stealing from them would become impossible. Whether it is possible for this to be a universal law for not, it would not be rational for Oscar to will that it become a universal law, since he would then will that he be stolen from if he were rich, and this would be irrational, even if he is not rich in fact. Hence his Robin Hood plan is immoral. The second form of the categorical imperative says that you must treat every person as an end in himself, never as a means only. Robbing the rich is treating them only as a means for the poor (and Oscar) to get more money, so it is ruled out.