'You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for it's children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need.' What do you do?
This dilemma is hard because you have two options, and both can be argued to be the right thing to do. Giving the man up to the authorities would be thought of as the right thing to do in any robbery, but as he has given the money to charity, it may be better to not say anything, so the charity may keep it's money. Evidently there are two paths one could take in thinking of the answer, I will explore the thoughts and answers given by four different philosophers, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, Joseph Fletcher, and Thomas Aquinas, and finally deciding on my own answer to the 'Robin Hood' problem.