Ragnar Danneskjold and Robin Hood hold two different moralities which are contradictory to each other. The notion that Robin Hood embodies the moralities of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" augments Danneskjold's intention to destroy him. Throughout his dissent with Robin Hood, Danneskjold sets out to destroy Robin Hood by reversing the avoidance of reality to its inversion the concept of justice. Danneskjold strongly believes that Robin Hood 's concept of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" is a depravity for the survival of mankind. Robin Hood is said to be the man who took advantage of the wealth of looters as well as wealth obtained from man's honest efforts to fulfill the need of the poor. ''He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor". (577) Another paradigm that exemplifies the depravity …show more content…
Throughout this fight with Robin Hood, Danneskjold sets out to destroy him by reversing the avoidance of reality with its inversion of the concept of justice. Robin hood opposes justice by using his corruption. He acts as a double parasite , living on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich. (577) On the other hand, justice in the eyes of Danneskjold contain the idea of reality, which men should act according to the nature and not the opposite idea that reality should be an illusion of life. Furthermore, Danneskjold indicates that he is a man who is seeking justice when he said “that it is a policeman’s duty to protect men from criminals – criminals being those who seize wealth by force. It is a policeman’s duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners.” (577-578) in the same token by returning Rearden’s wealth to him as well as seizing every loot-carrier, ships and vessels with stolen