Take this test!

[End Master]

Then explain why your opinion is superior to everyone else's.

It's only one question.

http://www.talisman.org/quizzes/robin-hood-morality.shtml

[apotheosis]

I'm not going to mention my results on that test....

[End Master]

Lol.

Let me guess you put Robin and the Sheriff in the first two positions and then put John and Marion in the last two?

Though the test really does make one out to be a complete dick if you do it that way. They should've had some better in-depth results, instead of the "You're a misogynist who hates women because you put Marion last!" thing.

In anycase I had John, Marion, Sheriff, Robin

[Usoki]

I'm pretty sure this test was written by some sort of feminist on a power trip. Putting Marion in the bottom two keeps producing "You have no respect for or skills with women" results, and it's pretty damn annoying. Heaven forbid some guy actually want to view premarrital sex as immoral.

[Locke]

Little John, Maid Marion, Sheriff, Robin.

Little John may not be the most loyal friend, but Robin doesn't seem to give him much to be loyal to. John stands against what he sees as injustice, and seems to do so for mostly the right reasons; he's certainly justified in taking his leave of Sherwood and has probably saved Marion from a life of abuse. Marion bribes the Sheriff with her body in order to loose two criminals on society, which is certainly immoral by the "realistic everyday standards of behavior" the writers mention, but she does so in order to rescue John and Robin from a very unpleasant fate, probably saving their lives. Those are mitigating circumstances, but ignore them and she still comes in ahead of the Sheriff and Robin.

The Sheriff abuses his authority and effectively blackmails Marion into sleeping with him, then releases two notorious criminals. His position of authority gives his decisions a greater impact on the world, but from an absolute moral standpoint he does, at least, give Marion a choice of sorts rather than forcing himself on her, and he is fair to the extent that he follows through with his part of the deal. Robin doesn't have any redeeming qualities to balance his transgressions. Even the Sheriff has a rudimentary sense of fair play and his own (if twisted) system of ethics, but where Robin is concerned there's not much to say in his defense. His anger at Marion is perhaps an understandable reaction, though he's certainly not very grateful for having his life back, but he crosses the line when he abuses her and throws her out. John tries to talk some sense into him, but Robin is really intent on being a bastard, so they leave.

I should note that though the scenario asks you to rate the characters based partially on how honest they are, none of them really exhibit any dishonesty - and that the authors of the answers, at least, have more than a little bias of their own. If you actually read all the answers, it becomes rather blatant.

[End Master]

Heh, Locke and I had the same answers. Pretty much the same reasoning too. Yeah, Robin might have scored higher if not for the whole abuse thing.



Here's another one.

A woman marries a really possessive Baron. He's so possessive, that he doesn't even want her leaving the castle when he's out. He says if he comes back and finds her missing, he'll track her down and kill her.

The woman however doesn't listen to the Baron, and she's got a lover on the side, but in order to see him she of course has to leave the castle. She's really careful though and the Baron never finds out.

So one day the Baron leaves again, he woman sneaks out and goes to see her lover as usual. On her way home this time though, there's a mad man on the bridge holding a knife.

He tells her that if she tries to cross the bridge he'll kill her. Unfortunately its the only quick path to get back the castle and she's got to get back now before the Baron comes home.

So she returns to her lover and asks him for help. He tells her that he won't help her and that its her problem.

The woman also has a best friend that lives over this river so she goes to seek her out for help. But her best friend also says that she won't help and that it's her problem.

Running out of options, she tries to find another way to cross. She runs into a ferryman who says he can take her over for 2 gold pieces. The woman doesn't have any money, but says she can pay him after she crosses. He wants payment in advance though and refuses to take her across.

After this last failure, the woman decides to try to run past the mad man. She fails and he kills her.

NOW

In descending order, who is MOST responsible for the woman's death?

[Vesnic]

I actually gave Robin Hood a little more slack and put him above the sheriff, mostly because the sheriff is an unjust asshole and Robin was reacting out of jealousy, a sort of behavior pattern that wouldn't necessarily become habitual. Plus, I interpreted "abuse" as meaning verbal abuse.

Or maybe I just enjoy being smacked around.

As for their evaluation of me, the survey creators called me broadminded, romantic and reasonably contented. I think this is funny. It's quite obvious that I'm a spiny prejudicial bitch with a big ax to grind. Right, guys?

(This is where the enjoying abuse part comes in!)

I'll get to the other one when I have a FREE FUCKING NANOSECOND.

Fuck.

[Locke]

The madman actually kills her and is directly responsible, so he comes first. Next is the woman herself. The madman told her he'd kill her if she tried to cross the bridge; there he was, brandishing a knife at her and she runs straight to her death anyway. Add to that the fact that all her actions (not to mention her choice of associates - husband, best friend, lover) placed her where she felt she had to get across the bridge and she's only slightly less responsible for her death than the guy who stabbed her. The lover knowingly places her life in jeopardy regularly by sleeping with her, then refuses to help her when she tells him about the knife-wielding maniac guarding the only route home.

The best friend differs from him in that she had no responsibility in creating the situation, and the ferryman from the best friend in that presumably the woman didn't let him in on all the I'm-cheating-on-the-Baron particulars of the situation. As far as the ferryman knows, he's just turning down a customer who can't pay, and who can blame him much? Still, he physically contributes to the killing, though he knows it not. The Baron has no idea about any of it, either, but as the primary motivating factor behind the woman's actions (he said he'd KILL her if she ever left the castle) I'd certainly place him above the ferryman - but (just barely) below the best friend in terms of responsibility for the specific incident.

So: Madman, woman, lover, best friend, Baron, ferryman.

(edit: I'm looking back over the "analyses" of the answers from the first question and wow, the authors do manage to disgust me a little. Not only are their analyses rather one dimensional and at times outright hypocritical, but every answer caters directly to their exceedingly liberal/feminist/nothing matters but one's own pleasure philosophy. It's as selfish and narrowminded a view as many of the others they present; it just involves more hedonism, excess and feminine supremacy. They strike me as quite immoral in a few ways, though morals are relative and they probably think they're quite righteous. Besides the blatant misandry, the "if casual sex isn't for you, if you don't put pleasure/happiness first, your mind is in chains; loosen up" outlook irritates me, as well as the belief that what they think comprises society's moral beliefs and if your own morals are "outdated" you ought to "update" them. Not that I agree with someone who would put the Sheriff or Robin first, but I think I'd get along with the authors even less. As regards the bias, really, even for pseudopsychology, how unprofessional can you get? The edit makes one of my shorter posts as long as the others, but I guess the survey struck a nerve.)

[End Master]

I had Mad Man, Woman, Best friend, Lover, Baron, Ferry Man.

The reason I had it the way I did is that the affair could just be a superficial fling OR it could be really deep. But I’m assuming in the Lover’s eyes it probably isn’t serious for him since he’s perfectly comfortable with her risking her life to go see him in the first place.

This basically means that while he’s having sex with her, he technically doesn’t have much more obligation than that. He’s certainly an asshole though to be sure.

The Best Friend on the other hand is supposed to be just that. She’s presumably closer to the woman and known her longer. So should’ve tried to be more helpful.

Though I can see the reason in switching the Lover and Best Friend around too.

[Locke]

Ah, the first three paragraphs led me to believe the affair had been going on for some time and that there was probably some sort of intimacy involved. In either case I'd still put the lover as more responsible though, as he actively risked her life and put her in that predicament in the first place, then refused to help her out of it, while the best friend only refused help. If it's a casual lover then yeah, the best friend is more reprehensible for not helping out, but not more responsible for the killing. Regardless of morals, ethics, closeness of relationships, etc, the lover simply did more in my opinion to cause the death of the woman.

[End Master]

(edit: I'm looking back over the "analyses" of the answers from the first question and wow, the authors do manage to disgust me a little. Not only are their analyses rather one dimensional and at times outright hypocritical, but every answer caters directly to their exceedingly liberal/feminist/nothing matters but one's own pleasure philosophy. It's as selfish and narrowminded a view as many of the others they present; it just involves more hedonism, excess and feminine supremacy. They strike me as quite immoral in a few ways, though morals are relative and they probably think they're quite righteous. Besides the blatant misandry, the "if casual sex isn't for you, if you don't put pleasure/happiness first, your mind is in chains; loosen up" outlook irritates me, as well as the belief that what they think comprises society's moral beliefs and if your own morals are "outdated" you ought to "update" them. Not that I agree with someone who would put the Sheriff or Robin first, but I think I'd get along with the authors even less. As regards the bias, really, even for pseudopsychology, how unprofessional can you get? The edit makes one of my shorter posts as long as the others, but I guess the survey struck a nerve.)

Oh yeah, it’s certainly biased. Like you said, I’d still stick by my answers for the same reasons, but I can see other reasons for putting other characters first and last.

Such as this way.

Robin Hood, Sheriff, Marion, Little John

And the explanation…

Robin
He didn’t do anything wrong at all, and is the victim. He’s out there risking his life for the common man, and his woman goes and sleeps with his arch enemy! His initial reaction while probably a little over the top was still justified.

Sheriff
He was the most honest in all the drama despite being the bad guy here. He didn’t force Marion to do anything since he only gave an offer and kept his word when the deal was done.

Marion
Obviously can’t love Robin that much if she’s willing to go sleep with another guy for any reason. Not to mention that really puts into question her loyalty as well as morality. She’s just plain idiotic at best if she thought Robin would really be alright with her getting him out of jail like that.

John
Obviously the most despicable of the bunch. He basically picks up a chick that used to be with his best friend. Not to mention he’s an opportunistic coward since he grabs Marion while she’s emotionally fragile and in a vulnerable position and runs away from Sherwood Forest with her since he knows Robin is probably going to kick his ass.

[donteatpoop]

Psychological tests. While I've done these before, I still stand by my answer.

Apparently I'm are fairly broadminded romantic and reasonably contented. You value kindness greatly and try to live by your ideals. You do not conceal from yourself, or from others, your strong need for security, which may be either emotional or material.

Men: Perhaps you tend to idealize women and credit them with virtues they don't possess.

[Locke]

I can see a case for John and Robin (though not the original John and Robin the survey tells us to ignore), having been imprisoned for legitimate crimes being ready to honorably serve their sentences when Marion and the Sheriff pull their stunt. In such a case her intent to free them would mean less to Robin compared with the act itself. In fact, her corruption of the Sheriff and circumvention of justice would compound the immorality. Little John betraying his principles and running off with her seems to leave Robin the only halfway decent one out of the bunch (though this interpretation of events is rather unlikely).

[End Master]

Its one of those tests where you’re inclined to fill in the lack of particular info with your own personality and perception.

Such as Ves didn’t see the word “abuse” to mean the physical kind, so Robin scored a bit higher for her. Whereas we both figured it implied physical so Robin got the lower ranking. It technically doesn’t specify though.

I figured it was physical since it said he “abused her AND called her a slut” meaning the verbal abuse was already indicated by the name calling and “abuse” was there to specify more than just the name calling was going on.


Other things that could change your perception

Robin and Little John's crime
We don't really know what they did or how long that they're even in jail for. Could be for stealing bread or it could be for killing kids. Regardless, most of us would probably assume they're in there forever (or going to get executed later) hence why Marion did the whole spend the night with the Sheriff thing. However, if we think they were going to be released (Like in 3 days)...well that pretty much makes Marion look a little worse.

Sheriff and Marion spent the night together.

Well how do we really know they had sex? We all pretty much think that's what happened but again it technically doesn't specify. For all we know the Sheriff and Marion just played Nintendo all night long and sex wasn't even in the equation. Which means Robin REALLY overreacted.


So it's funny to see such biased results for choosing particular answers.

[march5th00]

We were asked to do two things. First, abandon preconceived notions of the character. Because of that, I'm not allowed to take childhood stories about the characters into consideration. The characters became person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D.
Second, we were asked to rate them by both honesty and morality - nothing more.

My answer:
The Sheriff
Maid Marion
Little John
Robin Hood

The sheriff said, "this is what it will take," then lived up to his end of the deal. Very simply, he was the most honest of the characters and lived up to his word.

Maid Marion is second, because she sacrificed herself for somebody else (morally okay in her book), but at the same time cheated on robinhood (dishonest to Robinhood) - breaking their promise to each other.

Little John went against his friends wishes and took off with his girl, but in addition to that, I have to assume that he was imprisoned for a good reason (nobody innocent in prison). As a bit of a realist, that makes him more immoral than the other two.

Robin hood was just a dick in that story.

[End Master]

The Sheriff scored lower for me due to his corrupt nature.

If John and Robin are guilty then the Sheriff is just doing his job, however he’s still corrupt since he’s accepting a bribe in the form of sexual favors to release two criminals which to me at least puts him below Marion and John.

He’s certainly not moral in the traditional sense and you’d have to question his honesty since he’s supposed to be protecting the public and he’s letting criminal go free.

It probably should put him below Robin Hood too, but I just can’t tolerate ungratefulness and girlfriend/wife beating, so Robin was more of an asshole than the Sheriff in my eyes.

[march5th00]

But you're putting YOUR morals and societies morals on him Endmaster. His morality is his own. All of Kohlberg's Post-Conventional stages of morality are based on the idea that we have to define our own sense of morality - and as long as we believe that it's right, aside from our "conventional" laws, who is there to say differently?

So now all we have to rate these four characters on is honesty - which I have.

[End Master]

So in this particular society, the release of criminals is based on sexual favors by women?

Law Enforcement must be the most popular job there! :D


But if we go by that, then Robin really shouldn't be at the bottom. He'd probably score higher than Little John. While they're both criminals, he's slightly more honest than Little John. Little John took advantage of a situation and ran off with his best friend's girl thus backstabbing his best friend instead of standing by him. Robin on the other hand acted like a dick, but he wasn't duplicitious.

[march5th00]

Agreed. but he was just such a jerk... I could argue that he broke some trust he had with marion but I'd be stretching. Nah, I'm imposing my ideals on them too.

The analysis is such bull though. Considering the different ways you can view the question, I don't see how you could possibly pass judgement on any particular answer. Especially the way that they do.

[march5th00]

(Way to go March - just suck the fun right out of the thread! Jeez, the story asks you to use "realistic everyday standards of behavior" - not to throw out Kohlberg's post-fucking-conventional stages of moral development! )

Sorry guys. Kohlberg's kind of crap too, because you could counter that argument with Kant's categorical imperative. Taking "realistic everyday standards of behavior" in mind, I'd say that it would have to be John, Marion, Sheriff, then robinhood. The abuse puts robin at the end - he's the only one that really hurt anybody else.

[Usoki]

Geez, a lot of people are going with John>Marion>Sheriff>Robin. But, personally, I have the Sheriff and Marion switched. As the quiz says, "I don't understand women, and I have outdated morals". I mean, the Sheriff's a jerk, but he's doing his job, and he is honest. Marion betrayed a sacred trust, which just bothers me.

I love how no one here is trying to put Robin anywhere but last, though. ^_^

[Locke]

You and I are opposites then, March. I agree that morality is relative (though having never read Kohlberg I can't say I accept his definition) but who's to say the Sheriff is acting in accordance with his own morals - or any of the other characters, for that matter? Do you believe people are incapable of going against their moral code? I don't; I think most if not all people have at some point. Perhaps not all the characters betrayed their own morals (Little John seems the best candidate, followed possibly by Robin) but I think it very likely that probably the Sheriff and almost certainly Marion, as members of almost any society, believed on some level their actions were "wrong." They concsciously decided to go ahead anyway. It is possible that both happened to be complete sociopaths, but the chances are vanishingly small.

My answers also come from my assumption that the survey was asking me to specifically use my own values, morals, and sense of right and wrong to evaluate the four (how moral are you, what is your attitude, for readers to test themselves, in terms of realistic everyday standards of behavior, the order in which you consider, the psychologist's estimate of you). Judged against the system to which I hold myself and interpreting their actions the way that seems most reasonable/plausible to me, those are my answers.

In terms of honesty, I didn't see that anybody was dishonest within the confines of the story. The sheriff quite openly offered his deal and followed through, Marion confessed it to Robin and John, Robin told her what he thought, John responded and immediately following the argument John and Marion left while Robin stood there seething, watching them fade off into the distance. Nobody lies. It's implied that the Sheriff lies at some point outside the story about his captives and what a fine upstanding upholder of the law he is (though almost certainly a dishonest man, he does not actually lie in the story), and you can take the view that Marion lies by omission (not immediately telling Robin how she got him out) and Robin doesn't know John and Marion are running off (I think he does and was still standing there arguing when they left) so John's dishonest, but there's no evidence to support those views and I don't accept them.

Of course, "by their own standards" of honesty perhaps all the characters were outrageous liars, or the Sheriff was just telling a skewed version of the truth when he later claimed he'd imprisoned the outlaws but they 'escaped', or the authors of the story are lying and none of it really happened. Anyway, you can't pass judgement on the characters the way the authors do; if you think the way they think you'll be as messed up as they are. Yes, that's a statement completely riddled with personal and society-based values. I prefer it to any "at least they're doing what they think is right" ambiguities; society can't function with values like those.

(Edit: Wow, this thread is hot. March, why argue philosophy like math with its formulas? Kohlberg says - but Kant says, and Kant trumps Kohlberg - hey now, but maybe by Clinton's definition of sex - why not throw them out, and argue your own beliefs and conclusions on their own merits, unless you believe everything a particular philosopher put forth in a certain argument? I'll consider what they said, certainly, but I almost never think exactly the same way and I won't throw their names around as if they're valid points. Otherwise, well, I suppose Zacharias Vasquez's Negation of Everything argument (don't bother looking him up; he's not real, but I imagine he's quite the nihilist) makes all the other philosophers obsolete.

Usoki, I consider the Sheriff immoral because he abuses his authority to get what he wants (Marion), then looses two criminals on society (John and Robin). He's honest about it, but that's about the best you can say for him. It'd be as if he honestly said "I'm going to have some guards hold you down while I rape you," and then did it.)

[Vesnic]

Personally, I think it was Miss Scarlet in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick. Or maybe Sir Lancelot is really to blame because his devilish good looks and preference for Lady Guinevere was what drove Scarlet to a life of crime in the first place. In any case, post-modern or otherwise, I'm sure we could all settle this quibble by sitting down for Opium Teatime with Barney the Dinosaur and his band of merry minors.

[Nappi]

SRMJ = We find it hard to imagine you leading a full, happy life. The warmth and give-and-take of love are not for you. Your sex life is ringed with unreality, and you neither understand nor appreciate women.


This test is crap.:mad:
Like Usoki said,the Sheriff was doing his job.Robin was disciplining a whore.The whore was just being herself.and Little Jon was being a complete weasel.

[End Master]

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/028.gif

[Usoki]

I find it odd you've put John at the end...but I'd say that Robin, Sheriff, and Marion are all very close, and therefore hard to place. (I wanted to have tied combinations for J, S=M, R) But, differating opinions aside...I can't believe they told you that! Assuming you put that in with all seriousness. Either way, I can't believe that's a possible option. I love how the test makers have managed to take a question with 24 choices, and make 23 of those choices negative.

5 points for Ves, though. It'd be ten, but I'm a T.H. White fan, and therefore- Lancelot has charmed Guinever with his personality, not his good looks. He doesn't have good looks.

[Locke]

The Once and Future King? I wasn't a fan of that one. And Ves just doesn't get off on slightly serious debate stuff the way some of us seem to.

[End Master]

I find it odd you've put John at the end...

Well I'm guessing that Nappi (Assuming he's serious) may be going by the “Bros before Hos” perspective. Basically that means John is a complete scumbag as far as the “Man Code” goes. John put a woman before his friend which is something you’re never supposed to do.

I would assume women have a similar code, though I’m not sure if they have as an amusing name for it.

Though when it’s all usually put to the test in real life, all codes often go flying out the window.

The solution is to never have friends in first place, and then you can sleep with anyone you want!

[Vesnic]

And Ves just doesn't get off on slightly serious debate stuff the way some of us seem to.

It's sing-along time, everyone!

"Robin Hood and Little John
Walkin' through the forest
Laughin' back and forth
At what the other'ne has to say
Reminiscin', This-'n'-thattin'
Havin' such a good time
Oo-de-lally, Oo-de-lally
Golly, what a day"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPnJGHXiSXI

[Usoki]

I'm gonna have Robin Hood songs stuck in my head all day. All. Day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkdT4sslCV8

[Hi! My name is: Katie]

Little John, Maid Marion, Robin Hood, Sheriff.

Based on the information we have as fact, Little John didn't do anything wrong.

Maid Marion may or may not have slept with the sheriff. Also, she may or may not have broken trust with Robin Hood. Although it is stated that she slept with the sheriff because she loved Robin Hood and wanted to free him. It doesn't say that he had any claim on her. We assume that he might based on his reaction, but it doesn't say if they were married or even dating. In this world they might even be brother and sister! So, a girl spending a night with the sheriff could be harmless.

Robin Hood- when I first read this, I percevieved the abuse he delivered to be of the verbal and emotional variety. If Robin Hood really beat her, then he would drop to the bottom, but I originally understood that he didn't. He was just expressing himself verbally and sharing his opinions in an annoying, and regreatable, but relatively harmless manner. I can't fault someone for sharing their opinions. I might think they are crazy, and if I were Marion I wouldn't want to see him either. But then, I have issues with being yelled at.

Sheriff- he's at the bottom, because no matter how you slice it he is being really unethical about the bargaining for the prisoners. The others due to the wording could be given a scape goat. But, this guy is an official, and he is abusing his position to get what he wants out of Marion. No matter how you slice it that is wrong.

my 2 cents
~Katie