Robin Hood Ethics

I understand that the recent movie Robin Hood is nothing like the legend or TV show with which some of us grew up. It covers a period before Robin Hood became the legend. I doubt that I’ll see the movie, but I watched the TV show religiously when I was a kid. It’s the ethics underlying the legend I ask you to consider.

My childhood understanding of Robin Hood was pretty simple. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Although stealing was wrong, Robin was alright because the rich had already stolen from the poor, and Robin was just leveling the playing field. I didn’t dwell deeply on any ethical dilemmas Robin’s conduct presented for a law-abiding society. He and his band of merry men were entertaining, and he was just putting bad people in their place.

Most employers hold their employees to a code of ethics quite unlike that of Robin Hood. No stealing; no conflicts of interest; no appearance of impropriety; only unvarnished honesty. This code isn’t always taken seriously, but the ethics are still the standards for which employees must strive.

After the government’s bailout of big banks that had engaged in unethical if not criminal conduct, homeowners suffering the consequences of the banks’ unpunished behavior are bailing themselves out. They’re not paying their mortgages and staying in their homes as long as they can. The backlog of foreclosures allows some to stay in their homes for free up to a year or more.

While some see ethical problems with this approach, it’s becoming increasingly acceptable. The banks were bad to the homeowners, resulting in their owing more than their houses are now worth. Enter Robin Hood. With the demise of the acceptance of blame and trust being a thing of the past, Robin Hood ethics feel even better than they did when I was a kid. If they haven’t hit your workplace yet, just wait.