Utilitarianism and the morality of robbing the rich

Robbing from the rich in order to help the poor to prosper makes sense when viewed from a utilitarian perspective. The principle of utility dictates that a deed is deemed to be morally justifiable if it results in the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. Because in the world today the greatest numbers of people are poor rather than rich, it can be concluded that serving the poor at the expense of the rich would benefit a larger number of people. Furthermore, stealing from the rich to benefit the poor fits the principle of utility because it would result in the greatest possible balance of good over evil. It is impossible to please everyone in the world; however, if my actions can serve ten million people while hurting two, I can feel safe in saying that robbing the few to serve the many is a morally justifiable act.

Moreover, the act of stealing from the rich to serve the poor must be considered as an individual act. While a general morality would dictate that stealing is always wrong, as a utilitarian I prefer situational ethics. My act must be viewed on its own, independent of ingrained belief systems or patterns of thinking. I would say that it would be wrong to steal from the poor in order to serve the rich because the poor have so little to give that to steal from them would bring great sorrow to entire families. On the other hand, to steal from the rich might not have any affect whatsoever on a rich person. If he or she even noticed the tiny dent in the bank account, the damage would mostly be a sense of anger and indignation, not starvation or serious debt as it could be in the case of stealing from the poor.