Robin's Moral Conundrum

Me, myself and my inner utilitarian were recently arguing over the justifiability of the Robin Hood ethic of robbing the rich to feed the poor [1]. So I thought I might think about it a bit more with a blog.

Hypothetical situation: You are paying for a meal at a restaurant and the cashier gives you $10 extra change, which you return without thinking, as I presume most of us would. Walking back home you pass a homeless person and so you give him $10 for dinner. Walking on you pass a second homeless person, but find that you have no more cash on you so you leave him nothing. Now he will go and eat his dinner out of a trash can, an end you would have prevented had you kept the additional change rather than returning it.

Clearly the restaurant is the lawful owner of the $10, but is it the rightful owner? The $10 would make a real difference to the homeless person, but would have been dismissed as shrinkage with little thought or care by the restaurant. Presumably a utilitarian perspective would then support the theft.

Is it morally significant that the rule of law is breached? Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13, Titus 3:1 seem to suggest so. But surely our case is entirely unlike, say, an armed robbery, which creates fear and disorder on a wide scale. Our situation seems more like a civil dispute than a criminal offence since no-one but the restaurant seems to be negatively impacted at all. Neither was this ‘theft’ planned; rather, circumstances were outside of the control of the agent; it was almost as if luck had bestowed on him the opportunity. Is this then not an act against the authority?

But perhaps it is wrong because the agent is claiming for himself the power over a decision that rightfully belongs to the lawful owners of the money. In providing their service, the restaurant acquired the right to the money and removing their property right may be wrong in principle. Eighth commandment: Do not steal. I think it is fair to say that not giving someone their property is equivalent to taking it away from them [2].

But does the right to property outweigh all others? Or is the right to subsistence more essential and able to ‘trump’ property rights. I think most people would agree that some rights are of greater weight than others. For example, Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including…periodic holidays with pay” - an assertion that seems almost trivial beside the right to life, liberty and security of the person, or freedom of expression. So then, can we say it is better to deny a man his property rights than let a man starve? In our hypothetical situation both can not be had; either one actively breaks a rights, or passively submits to one being broken. What is one to do?

So far I think I have just asked the questions without giving much opinion (not that ethics is a matter of opinion - you heard me all you moral relativists, not a matter of opinion). Basically I have to say that one must give the change to the lawful owner and, operating within the constraints of the law, do as much as possible to assist the more needy person. If you discard absolutes such as those that prevent stealing then you place yourself on shaky moral ground, and its only a matter of time before you lose your balance.


[1] Not that Robin Hood ever robbed, he just sort of borrowed a bit from those who could afford it, to cite the classic Disney movie
[2] So, unfortunately for Robin, failure to return borrowed funds adds up to the same thing as robbing. Can’t escape on a technicality there.