Robin Hood Morality Test

[panamaican]

Interesting thoughts.
The Sheriff did release two criminals (from maximum security prison no less) in exchange for sex though. Imo that's very low from a guy that is supposed to uphold law and order.

Nothing I read said that he lacked the authority to release them on his terms so I can't assume he was breaking any laws.

 

[Rod1]

Nothing I read said that he lacked the authority to release them on his terms so I can't assume he was breaking any laws.

Said like a true lawyer

 

[Thames]

Nothing I read said that he lacked the authority to release them on his terms so I can't assume he was breaking any laws.

Well, in case he acts like judge, jury and executioner then no. But is it not safe to assume that there must be a reason for them being in maximum security prison?

 

[panamaican]

Well, in case he acts like judge, jury and executioner then no. But is it not safe to assume that there must be a reason for them being in maximum security prison?

Even if there is a reason for them being incarcerated, it wouldn't tell me anything about the Sheriff's authority to release on terms of his choosing.

For all we know, the crime was punishable by fine and sex is treated as valid currency in their society. Maid Marion was paying Robin Hood and Little John's fine and the Sheriff had no choice but to release them upon receiving the payment.

 

[Mike]

Imo the sheriff is most corrupt because either the incarceration was unlawful, or he let criminals that should be imprisoned go in exchange for sex.

 

[Quipling]

Little John, Sheriff, Maid Marion, Robin Hood.

Little John did nothing immoral or dishonest. The Sheriff didn't either. He did manipulate the situation to his advantage but he kept his word.

Marion was mostly right except it sounds like she made a choice that violated some understanding with Robin Hood so she's failed him in some fashion. Robin Hood was completely in the wrong because he was ungrateful to Marion and didn't validate her sacrifice which was purely for his benefit.

I think the "violated some understanding" is a pre-conceived notion you carried in that rests on the assumption that M must have done something to cause the bad act from RH. From the question,

Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her

Her bewilderment suggests that there was no such understanding to violate.

 

[panamaican]

I think the "violated some understanding" is a pre-conceived notion you carried in that rests on the assumption that M must have done something to cause the bad act from RH. From the question,



Her bewilderment suggests that there was no such understanding to violate.

Her bewilderment suggests that any she didn't expect Robin's response, not that there wasn't an understanding. Also, the understanding in question doesn't have to be an explicit one. Many couples never explicitly discuss important elements of their relationship. They make the assumption, fair or not, that the other party understands those elements in the same way that they do.

So, Maid Marion didn't need to know which understanding Robin thinks she's violated for her to have violated it. But Robin's response makes clear that he didn't approve of Marion's behavior and that wouldn't have happened unless he assumed she knew his wishes. So she's clearly failed him even if she didn't realize it.

That puts her 3rd on the morality list because her actions clearly contradicted the rules of her relationship with Robin. Nothing in the example says that Robin was acting irrationally or out of character when he berated her. I still think he should have shown more gratitude even if he couldn't condone her actions so he's worse. He took the benefit from her sacrifice without giving her even the minimum of fair treatment.

 

[Rod1]

I think the "violated some understanding" is a pre-conceived notion you carried in that rests on the assumption that M must have done something to cause the bad act from RH. From the question,



Her bewilderment suggests that there was no such understanding to violate.

Plus if Marion had acted with malice, she could had simply lied to Robin.

 

[Quipling]

Her bewilderment suggests that any she didn't expect Robin's response, not that there wasn't an understanding. Also, the understanding in question doesn't have to be an explicit one. Many couples never explicitly discuss important elements of their relationship. They make the assumption, fair or not, that the other party understands those elements in the same way that they do.

So, Maid Marion didn't need to know which understanding Robin thinks she's violated for her to have violated it. But Robin's response makes clear that he didn't approve of Marion's behavior and that wouldn't have happened unless he assumed she knew his wishes. So she's clearly failed him even if she didn't realize it.

That puts her 3rd on the morality list because her actions clearly contradicted the rules of her relationship with Robin. Nothing in the example says that Robin was acting irrationally or out of character when he berated her. I still think he should have shown more gratitude even if he couldn't condone her actions so he's worse. He took the benefit from her sacrifice without giving her even the minimum of fair treatment.

Again with the preconceptions. You're inventing the rule of their relationship to explain his actions, even though the only basis for it is that he acted badly and what you already believe to be true about relationships generally. The bewilderment suggests that he was acting irrationally.

Moreover, you're making the argument that she acted badly by failing to anticipate that he was an ungrateful asshole. There's no malice there, nor is it wrong to fail to live up to a standard somebody else has for you that you have no idea exists.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Jesus, you're a weirdo.

If you don't want to validate your cringe-worthy innuendo that you're some philosophical savant able to think in abstract ways that "commoners," to use your hilarious terminology, cannot, you should be able to explain yourself when asked to do so instead of getting defensive and continuing to hollowly pontificate. I'm not asking for a dissertation on Sartre, just that you produce what you advertise.

Also, I love "attacking my own beliefs." The fact that I'm asking you to enlighten me as to your wisdom should be evidence of that. And the fact that you refuse to elaborate on these vague allusions (I guess "illusions" might be the more proper homophone), is not my fault. It's the fault of you being a somewhat dumb kid who wants to self-aggrandize without putting in the proper heavy lifting to justify doing so.


*queue another accusatory post filled with ill-fitting words instead of a mere explanation of your genius*

Dude just stop it's getting sad now. You refuse to test your own beliefs and live in arrested development. The worst thing about this is you are a grown man in denial who is overly sensitive and goes out of his way to insult those whom are his junior. Your initial angry comments against me prove my earlier point about you being incapable of escaping the box or your own small little world.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box#Other_theories

^^ actually read. And maybe go back to school since you seem to like referencing it so much.

 

[panamaican]

Again with the preconceptions. You're inventing the rule of their relationship to explain his actions, even though the only basis for it is that he acted badly and what you already believe to be true about relationships generally. The bewilderment suggests that he was acting irrationally.

Moreover, you're making the argument that she acted badly by failing to anticipate that he was an ungrateful asshole. There's no malice there, nor is it wrong to fail to live up to a standard somebody else has for you that you have no idea exists.

Actually the exact opposite. I'm pointing out that we don't know the rules of their relationship and so we shouldn't rule out the examples that I'm presenting. Bewilderment doesnt' tell us anything about their relationship, it only tells us that she didn't expect that response. The assumption that people are making is that Robin Hood was irrational but there's nothing in writing to support that.

As to the standard, we can't assume that there was no standard and we can't assume that there was one. So any analysis of their moral and honesty actions that disregards scenarios that are in Robin's favor are already biased in Marion's favor.

 

[Krallang]

This test was obviously written by a woman or a SJW.

If you pick anyone other then Little John ahead of Marion you are a cuckold who doesn't understand women and can't please them.

If you picked Marion first and Little John second you are a romantic knight who knows a woman's true beauty.

I picked like 10 different answers just to see what the results would say.

 

[Rod1]

This test was obviously written by a woman or a SJW.

If you pick anyone other then Little John ahead of Marion you are a cuckold who doesn't understand women and can't please them.

If you picked Marion first and Little John second you are a romantic knight who knows a woman's true beauty.

I picked like 10 different answers just to see what the results would say.

Or you could had read properly and see that there is an option to see all the answers right there.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Dude just stop it's getting sad now. You refuse to test your own beliefs and live in arrested development. The worst thing about this is you are a grown man in denial who is overly sensitive and goes out of his way to insult those whom are his junior. Your initial angry comments against me prove my earlier point about you being incapable of escaping the box or your own small little world.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box#Other_theories

^^ actually read. And maybe go back to school since you seem to like referencing it so much.

Okay, so don't explain yourself and just keep referring to others' philosophical constraints.

As I predicted, you don't have any substance and can't explain an actual perspective. To get in such a tizzy just because someone asked you to explain yourself is pretty hilarious. But, yeah, I'm in denial.

 

[Krallang]

Or you could had read properly and see that there is an option to see all the answers right there.

Point still stands, the test was written by a female gender studies major. My bad for not navigating a site designed in the 90's properly, it'll get right on it.

 

[dontsnitch]

Point still stands, may bad for not navigating a site designed in the 90's properly.

Lol, it is pretty tacky.

I mentioned this earlier, but this story has been around longer than the website has. It's just meant to spark discussion about moral relativism. The "conclusions" the site puts forward are somewhat irrelevant. For one, they can't possibly know why you chose the order you did as to make an accurate prediction.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The lawyer speak is really shitting up the thread now.

 

[Rod1]

Point still stands, the test was written by a female gender studies major. My bad for not navigating a site designed in the 90's properly, it'll get right on it.

Actually you are wrong, if you pick Sheriff, Marion, John and Robin you get to be a cynic and someone who values honesty.

Thats because Marion exhibits the same moral qualities as John and Sheriff while Robin exhibits none.

Sheriff shows honesty and forgiveness, Marion shows honesty when she is asked by Robin, so if you value honesty above all you will either have Sheriff or Marion on top.

If you value devotion and loyalty, then you will have either John and Marion on top, since both are willing to sacrifice and devot their lives to another one.

Robin shows no quality whatsoever, except maybe not doing anything, but he abuses Marion.

So the place of Marion depends on how you view sex and how you view women in the end. Otherwise she is going to be first or second.