This content was originally posted by: blue-iceThats why they need to explain their actions and justify why they did it...because they know its wrong...the act of killing and stealing will aways be wrong..whatever the justification may be...except may be killing for self defense or to save an innocent life...
When one tells the truth..no justification is required..
Can we compare a socialist ruler with 'Robinhood'?This content was originally posted by: Summer3
Robbing the rich and giving it to the poor sounds like Robin Hood, but in the eyes of the law it would be classified as a crime unfortunately.Taking the life of another innocent human being is a crime but killing an innocent animal is not it seems.
Generally most Rulers only grab everything for themselves.This content was originally posted by: blue-iceCan we compare a socialist ruler with 'Robinhood'?
This content was originally posted by: Summer3Robbing the rich and giving it to the poor sounds like Robin Hood, but in the eyes of the law it would be classified as a crime unfortunately.Taking the life of another innocent human being is a crime but killing an innocent animal is not it seems.
We always percieve 'rich' as someone who has accumulated their wealth by illegal mean or by supressing others...but what if Robinhood robbed from a rich who is rich because of his hard work and gave it to a poor who is poor because he didn't want to get off his lazy ass...what then...will the act of robinhood still be noble?This content was originally posted by: *dewdrop~pearl*
Thats what...when we analyse from an "action vs intention" POV, the rights and wrongs are a matter of perception. Some people believe ends justify means, whereas others think the opposite. So it might not constitute a universal right/wrong. From a moral point of view, we might think what Robinhood is doing is noble, maybe even from "karma" point of view, he is gaining more brownie points, but from legal point of view, ya, it is considered "wrong". Same goes with certain "revenge" murders, where sometimes the entire world empathises/sympathises with the killer after hearing his/her reason behind it (like a father killing the rapist/killer of his 8 year old daughter, etc.), but legally, it might still be considered wrong. If you have watched Aishwarya Rai's Provoked, where a woman kills her husband, the entire movie is about this moral and legal perceptions of "right" and "wrong".
This content was originally posted by: blue-iceWe always percieve 'rich' as someone who has accumulated their wealth by illegal mean or by supressing others...but what if Robinhood robbed from a rich who is rich because of his hard work and gave it to a poor who is poor because he didn't want to get off his lazy ass...what then...will the act of robinhood still be noble?
This content was originally posted by: *dewdrop~pearl*So I guess, not everyone can be right at all times, nor wrong. Each act needs to be evaluated independently, to determine whether it is ACTUALLY right or wrong.
This content was originally posted by: souro
Yes exactly. Whether an act is right or wrong depends on the context. If the variables change, so will the equation.
comment:
p_commentcount