Robin Hood Morality Test

[dontsnitch]

Nabal and Abigail:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+25

Yeah, I remember now. I haven't read Samuel in years.

John was a thief, and ended up in prison. He may have even killed people, I don't remember the particulars of his crimes.

They say you're not supposed to carry in outside assumptions, so we're not supposed to assume that John/Robin are thieves.

I did the same thing, in that I faulted John for taking his friend's girl, but it's not stated that they're friends.

 

[dontsnitch]

Also judging by the psychologists interpretation of the results, I think dude has a cuckolding fetish.

Haha, which combination is the cuckold interpretation?

 

[Rod1]

Also judging by the psychologists interpretation of the results, I think dude has a cuckolding fetish.

So you got the cuck interpretation?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Marion- Sacrificed a degree of her own desires or will for the greater good of her cause. She did something she found gross to save Robin whom she also loved.

Sheriff- Got what he wanted

Robin- His initial reaction can be understandable but he turned a little mean. Nonetheless it is how own preogative to abandon her

Little john- did nothing and swooped in on a probably distraught saddened girl who needed a quick rebound. I can't fault him for finding appeal in Marion for her actions but I don't regard John as anymore different than Sheriff in getting something he wanted. In fact John might rank higher than Robin hood if it wasn't for the fact that Robin hood was once noble.


Why did I rank sheriff so high? Because by the principles of life and how people live their daily lives he did what was in his best interests. And since only Marion acted for the greater good only she can be placed above him. Sheriff did something really bad but his actions are how one often wins wars.

Plus I like arguing against what everyone else is saying.

 

[ocean size]

Haha, which combination is the cuckold interpretation?

So you got the cuck interpretation?

From sampling a few of the interpretations, it looks like anything that doesn't have MM in first or second gives an interpretation of sexual inhibition, insecurity, fear of women or worse.
I don't mean I got the shrink is telling me I'm a cuckold, I think he might be if to him, anything but leveraging poon for an outcome is the most noble thing.

Here's my reasoning. LJ did literally nothing wrong, unless you read in to him being brod with RH. The Sheriff arguably didn't either, he gave M an honest utilitarian choice to oof for money, although one could certainly argue coersion.

RH, on the other hand, it appears was betrayed. Perhaps I shouldn't have byt I took the liberty of assuming there was a relationship there with RH because his reaction would be unrealistic if they were perfect strangers. He 'abused' M though whatever that means, so clearly he is no angel.

I think you have to read between the lines to think M is the most noble either though. We don't know how long they were going to be in jail. What if it was until their Drivers Liscence checks came through? What if despite professing her love she oofed the Sheriff to get back at RH for leaving the toilet seat up? Why do we assume the sex was an altruistic sacrifice?

So while there are multiple ways to interpret the story I think there is more than enough room to interpret in such a way Marion isn't the most noble.

I think she was written in by the shrink as a trap for the 'prudes' but it takes a certain filter to assume any interpretation where she isn't the most moral is best explained by mistrust, insecurity, fear etc. That is why I think the shrink likes watching his wife get railed.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I had:

Sheriff:
- imprisoned Little John and Robin Hood for unknown reason, +0.
- agreed to release them after sleeping with Marion, did so, HONESTY +1.

Marion:
- pleaded love for Robin, acted to his benefit, HONESTY +1, MORALITY +1.
- slept with the Sheriff, +0.
- confessed truth to Robin about how she'd freed him, HONESTY +1.
- left with Little John, +0.

Robin:
- imprisoned for unknown reason, +0.
- shames and abuses Marion for acting to his benefit, MORALITY -1.

Little John:
- imprisoned for unknown reason, +0.
- defended Marion and promised lifelong devotion, MORALITY +1.

Marion - 2
Little John - 1
Sheriff - 1
Robin - 0

I guess the most fundamental thing I'm committing to is approving Marion's deed and assuming it was self-sacrificing (i.e. the Sheriff wasn't a hottie and/or she didn't tend in the nympho direction). Since we don't know whether the imprisonment was justified without making assumptions based on previous exposures to the character names, I left it +0 either way (still exposing a hesitance to side with the law by default, but hopefully with a smaller bias).

Interpretation:

You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior. You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion.

Men: You are sexually uninhibited, more romantic than you may appear, and more dependent on the approval of others than you care to admit.

Yea, I guess that's alright.

 

[dontsnitch]

From sampling a few of the interpretations, it looks like anything that doesn't have MM in first or second gives an interpretation of sexual inhibition, insecurity, fear of women or worse.
I don't mean I got the shrink is telling me I'm a cuckold, I think he might be if to him, anything but leveraging poon for an outcome is the most noble thing.

Here's my reasoning. LJ did literally nothing wrong, unless you read in to him being brod with RH. The Sheriff arguably didn't either, he gave M an honest utilitarian choice to oof for money, although one could certainly argue coersion.

RH, on the other hand, it appears was betrayed. Perhaps I shouldn't have byt I took the liberty of assuming there was a relationship there with RH because his reaction would be unrealistic if they were perfect strangers. He 'abused' M though whatever that means, so clearly he is no angel.

I think you have to read between the lines to think M is the most noble either though. We don't know how long they were going to be in jail. What if it was until their Drivers Liscence checks came through? What if despite professing her love she oofed the Sheriff to get back at RH for leaving the toilet seat up? Why do we assume the sex was an altruistic sacrifice?

So while there are multiple ways to interpret the story I think there is more than enough room to interpret in such a way Marion isn't the most noble.

I think she was written in by the shrink as a trap for the 'prudes' but it takes a certain filter to assume any interpretation where she isn't the most moral is best explained by mistrust, insecurity, fear etc. That is why I think the shrink likes watching his wife get railed.

To be fair, this scenario has been around for a while, all this website did was add some interpretations, and dubious ones at that.

I say that, cause there's so many things to consider, you can't possibly know why I ranked the characters as I did.

 

[Mike]

I've been struggling to answer this morality test, and was wondering what the WR thought. Not sure if this is better in the Berry, but since there's often conversations about philosophy and religion here, it might work out.

I identified what I believe the characters did wrong, I just can't decide on the order:



I am really struggling to answer this. Anyone wanna take a crack?

Imo from best to worst:

1. Marian: She took the only option she had available to try to save her man. Sucks that it involved cheating,, but she wasn't cheating on him just to have fun. Sometimes you have to make unpleasant bargains in life

2: Little John: I don't see as wrong in any way. He obviously loved Marian if he's pledging himself to her for life. She was already rejected by Robin, is he supposed to wait some arbitrary amount of time to pursue her so it doesn't "look bad"? If so, why?

3: Robin. He's acting a bit like a douche in this scenario. Morals are not absolute and are subject to circumstances. That level of idealism isn't practical in real life.

4: The Sheriff: This guy is just a completely immoral douche.

 

[dontsnitch]

I had:

Sheriff:
- imprisoned Little John and Robin Hood for unknown reason, +0.
- agreed to release them after sleeping with Marion, did so, HONESTY +1.

Marion:
- pleaded love for Robin, acted to his benefit, HONESTY +1, MORALITY +1.
- slept with the Sheriff, +0.
- confessed truth to Robin about how she'd freed him, HONESTY +1.
- left with Little John, +0.

Robin:
- imprisoned for unknown reason, +0.
- shames and abuses Marion for acting to his benefit, MORALITY -1.

Little John:
- imprisoned for unknown reason, +0.
- defended Marion and promised lifelong devotion, MORALITY +1.

Marion - 2
Little John - 1
Sheriff - 1
Robin - 0

I guess the most fundamental thing I'm committing to is approving Marion's deed and assuming it was self-sacrificing (i.e. the Sheriff wasn't a hottie and/or she didn't tend in the nympho direction). Since we don't know whether the imprisonment was justified without making assumptions based on previous exposures to the character names, I left it +0 either way (still exposing a hesitance to side with the law by default, but hopefully with a smaller bias).

Interpretation:



Yea, I guess that's alright.

@These Two Hands did a similar numerical assignment to deeds/misdeeds.

I don't quite get why you consider every action equal, worthy of a +1, -1. Like, you have Little John defending Marion as morally equivalent as the Sheriff sleeping with her. J'accuse!

 

[dontsnitch]

Imo from best to worst:

1. Marian: She took the only option she had available to try to save her man. Sucks that it involved cheating,, but she wasn't cheating on him just to have fun. Sometimes you have to make unpleasant bargains in life

2: Little John: I don't see as wrong in any way. He obviously loved Marian if he's pledging himself to her for life. She was already rejected by Robin, is he supposed to wait some arbitrary amount of time to pursue her so it doesn't "look bad"? If so, why?

3: Robin. He's acting a bit like a douche in this scenario. Morals are not absolute and are subject to circumstances. That level of idealism isn't practical in real life.

4: The Sheriff: This guy is just a completely immoral douche.

Yeah, to me it's clearly either MJRS or MRJS, just because I can't I can't shake the feeling that Little John is grabbing the rebound pretty hard.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

@These Two Hands did a similar numerical assignment to deeds/misdeeds.

I don't quite get why you consider every action equal, worthy of a +1, -1. Like, you have Little John defending Marion as morally equivalent as the Sheriff sleeping with her. J'accuse!

Yea I thought the easiest ranking was by frequency of event rather than the more subjective moral power or something like that.

Mostly I couldn't think of a weighting system that would change the order substantially, so it didn't matter anyway. My moral values are still sufficiently exposed.

 

[These Two Hands]

@These Two Hands did a similar numerical assignment to deeds/misdeeds.

I don't quite get why you consider every action equal, worthy of a +1, -1. Like, you have Little John defending Marion as morally equivalent as the Sheriff sleeping with her. J'accuse!

In my case, refer to my disclaimer about not taking it exceptionally seriously. I spent less than 5 minutes on it, lol.

 

[Chinballs]

Now if:

- Lil John was guilty of rape.

- Robin was guilty of decapitating some peasant.

- Marion knew she had HIV.

- The Sheriff was actually trying to pin them on a theft he comitted, not knowing what they had actually done.

That would spice up the story. As it stands is more an excercise in preconcieved notions since any crucial information is withold.

Imma highroad this one and say they are all asshole.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yea I thought the easiest ranking was by frequency of event rather than the more subjective moral power or something like that.

Mostly I couldn't think of a weighting system that would change the order substantially, so it didn't matter anyway.

What kind of flimsy moral code is this? You think the Robin Hood morality test is a game?

Nah, it's a tough one. I think I've had just about every combination at one time.

 

[These Two Hands]

Yeah, I remember now. I haven't read Samuel in years.



They say you're not supposed to carry in outside assumptions, so we're not supposed to assume that John/Robin are thieves.

I did the same thing, in that I faulted John for taking his friend's girl, but it's not stated that they're friends.

Oops I assumed they (Robin and Marion) weren't married; if so then John and Marion would've had another -1 each from me...

 

[ocean size]

To be fair, this scenario has been around for a while,

Good to know.

Personally I think preserving someone's dignity is a moral good. Judging by RH reaction I think it is a lesser assumption to think MM gravely and likely knowingly failed to do so and acting to get him freed was selfserving, than assuming RH and LJ were friends or some of the other things that are taken as givens.

 

[These Two Hands]

Mostly I couldn't think of a weighting system that would change the order substantially, so it didn't matter anyway. My moral values are still sufficiently exposed.

Mine would've had mortal and venial, but as far as the paragraph we are given nothing appears to be only venial at a cursory glance so I didn't bother...

 

[dontsnitch]

- Marion knew she had HIV.

That'd be a plot twist.

Oops I assumed they (Robin and Marion) weren't married; if so then John and Marion would've had another -1 each from me...

I don't think we're meant to know that they're married or not, but the implication has to be that they're a couple of some kind. Otherwise, it falls apart.

 

[dontsnitch]

Good to know.

Personally I think preserving someone's dignity is a moral good. Judging by RH reaction I think it is a lesser assumption to think MM gravely and likely knowingly failed to do so and acting to get him freed was selfserving, than assuming RH and LJ were friends or some of the other things that are taken as givens.

Someone else also said that Marion acted selfishly. I think that's part of what makes this good dinner conversation; there's so many ways to look at it.

 

[These Two Hands]

That'd be a plot twist.



I don't think we're meant to know that they're married or not, but the implication has to be that they're a couple of some kind. Otherwise, it falls apart.

Yes I just assumed they were a couple but not married, however if they were married then her and Little John initiating a relationship would be an immoral act.