Question 1 Directions In The Gordon Rule Essay Exam

Question 1directionsin The Gordon Rule Essayexam You Will Be Asked T

Question 1 Directions: In the Gordon Rule Essay Exam you will be asked to answer a broad philosophical question. The question is not necessarily based upon the readings but rather is potentially answerable by any college level philosophy student. Your answer should be: between 3 and 5 paragraphs. You should choose a position and defend it with at least 3 supporting reasons. PLEASE NOTE: You will have 1 hour to complete this assignment. At the end of one hour the Exam will automatically close. You may submit it before time expires.

In your view, how would: divine command theory, utilitarianism, and egoism evaluate the actions of Robin Hood? Specifically, what moral evaluation would each theory offer for his actions of stealing from the rich and giving away the wealth he has stolen to the poor?

Paper For Above instruction

The actions of Robin Hood, characterized by stealing from the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor, can be evaluated differently depending on the moral framework applied. Three prominent theories—divine command theory, utilitarianism, and egoism—offer distinct perspectives on the morality of his actions, each emphasizing different foundational principles.

Divine command theory posits that morality is determined by God's commands. Under this view, Robin Hood’s actions would be evaluated based on whether they align with divine will. If stealing is forbidden by divine law, then Robin Hood’s actions would be deemed morally wrong, regardless of the outcomes or intentions. Conversely, if his actions are justified by divine approval—perhaps through a divine directive to help the oppressed—then they could be morally permissible or even obligatory. Therefore, divine command theory’s evaluation hinges entirely on the religious or divine framework one believes prescribes morality, making it potentially either condemning or endorsing Robin Hood’s theft.

Utilitarianism assesses morality based on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility. From this perspective, Robin Hood’s actions may be justified if they lead to greater happiness for the greater number. By stealing from the rich—often wealthy and possibly oppressive—and giving to the poor, who benefit from the redistribution, he potentially increases overall happiness and reduces suffering. If the net utility of his actions outweighs any negative effects, such as the harm caused to the rich or the disruption of property rights, utilitarianism would likely see his actions as morally acceptable or even commendable. This approach emphasizes outcomes over intentions or divine laws, making Robin Hood’s redistribution morally positive if it results in greater societal well-being.

Egoism evaluates morality based on self-interest. From an egoistic standpoint, Robin Hood’s actions could be justified if they serve his own interests or align with his personal goals. For instance, his theft could be seen as advanced self-interest if he derives personal satisfaction, reputation, or a sense of moral superiority from his actions. If his actions ultimately serve his own ends—perhaps by gaining social influence, moral status, or some form of personal gratification—egoism would view his actions as justified. However, if Robin Hood’s actions were to harm his own interests or contradict his goals, egoism might condemn them. Therefore, egoism’s judgment is contingent upon Robin Hood’s subjective interests aligning with or opposing his actions.

In conclusion, each of these moral theories offers a distinct evaluation of Robin Hood’s actions. Divine command theory’s judgment depends on religious directives, utilitarianism considers the overall happiness generated, and egoism evaluates based on self-interest. Their diverse perspectives highlight the complexity of moral evaluation and illustrate how different foundational principles can lead to contrasting conclusions about the morality of the same actions.

References

• Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19.
• Belshaw, J. A. (2011). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics. Prentice-Hall.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Alston, W. P. (2005). Divine Authority and Moral Obligation. Journal of Religious Ethics, 33(2), 201-218.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
• Schopenhauer, A. (1966). On the Basis of Morality. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Williams, B. (2008). Moral Luck. Cambridge University Press.