Someone posted a value clarification exercise to USENET. Here's what my response was.
From: Richard Kettlewell <richardk+ah-from=uk.misc@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone got any Morality to spare?
Date: 08 Feb 2000 12:13:24 +0000
Iain A F Fleming <iainf@kororaa.uk.eu.org> writes:
> VALUES CLARIFICATION EXERCISE
Here's my analysis (written prior to reading the list of estimates or anyone else's responses).
I'll assume `morality' to be judged on my own terms, which I consider (rightly or wrongly) to be an example of realistic every-day standards of behaviour, rather than whatever value systems the characters themselves might hold, since I know what the former is but not the latter. I don't see much possibility for argument about what `honesty' means.
The sheriff's behaviour certainly shows zero morality. There is arguably some honesty (he's entirely up-front about his motivations) but I think the abuse of legal power (i.e. his use of the force of the state to achieve his personal goal of sex with Marion) is an instance of dishonesty.
Robin is the most complex case. There are two possibilities to consider here; either Marion had already been looking for an excuse to funt the sheriff, or she was only doing it out of desperation.
I believe the latter to be true, on the basis that she admitted what she'd done to Robin - I would expect that if she'd just been looking for an excuse she'd have probably lied about it, and thus the situation would not have arisen in the first place.
You could argue that Robin was reacting in the heat of the moment, after a stressful and unpleasant experience: i.e. sexual jealousy can be a very strong motivator and being in a dungeon is horrible.
However if he loved Marion then he ought to have given her the benefit of the doubt. (If he didn't, then it clearly wouldn't have been any of his business who she slept with.) The right reaction is surely to explain to her why he's unhappy about her actions, rather than to start off with abuse.
However, I think it would be unwise to discount this argument entirely. So, I'm reluctant to *entirely* condemn him.
Little John appears largely blameless in defending Marion. I shall assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that when he promises life-long devotion he means it. However his actual actions are not the only (IMV) moral course of action open to him - he could try to patch things up between Robin and Marion, for example.
As for Marion, I've established above that I think she only did this thing out of desperation; which makes her behaviour basically honest and moral. After Robin's reaction, I think it's entirely reasonable for her to want nothing more to do with him; John on the other hand has demonstrated that he actually sees her as an independent person, rather than as just a possession.
So Marion comes at the top of my list, then John, then a big gap, then Robin, then the Sheriff.