Bandits

What struck me most about the cult of the bandit, and what can make them so apealing, is that essentailly these are people breaking rules and challenging the limits of social boundaries and freedoms. In terms of 'breaking the law', the laws we have in place in our societies around the world are there fundamentally because the societies that implement them have reached a collective decision that certain moral paths are the correct way to conduct one's self and others are not. Many of us agree that murder is wrong, although some do not. It would be hard to find examples of convicted mass murderers who have gained notoriety who recieve plaudits from groups in society, such as Charles Manson.

Although Manson is a notorious criminal, and has in many circles gained himself a cult following, it would be hard for even his biggest so called 'fans' to commend his crimes, when they actually examine the acts of Charles Manson and not the created celebrity image that preceeds him.

This is why it is easier to identify with other figures who fit more into the bandit stereotype than Manson. The classic example being Robin Hood. Fact or fiction aside, the character of Robin Hood was breaking laws imposed by society, just as Manson was, but Robin Hood's acts were much more ethically acceptable. Robbing the rich to give to the poor is more palatable and honourable for most than murdering. This brings me again, as many topics within the being bad module have done, to the philosophical area of ethics. It is very interesting and yet incredibly difficult to understand where and why these collectively agreed ethics actually do come from. Why is it heroic for someone to rob from the rich and give to the poor, yet disgusting and condemnable to kill another human being, and furthermore, what if one were to kill another human being whilst robbing the rich to feed the poor. It can very much be argued that this happens frequently in warfare around the world. Although many oppose such actions, we often collectively agree that killing to serve a greater cause is acceptable. There seems to be something of Kantian utilitarianism in this idea. 'The ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility.' (Source - wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

This seems to suggest to me that the guideline for human ethics is not what laws dictated by societies tell us, but that which is the most fundamentally 'human' way to act. Indeed, it derives from the question - 'Can we condone what we have done, or others have done, and ask that we would expect the same treatment upon ourselves and our circumstances?' Further, 'Was it right, not that someone killed, but why someone killed?' and 'Was this killing ethically justifiable given the circumstances?'