Stealth

[Pharaoh Cat]

Stealth will be understood as the mastered ability to preserve all honor while enjoying all luxury.  Honor will be understood as esteem public and private, and luxury as comfort, delight, and convenience.

Shall we, especially we, who mock the consensus so readily, teach our children stealth?

Consider the Spartans, who taught their sons to steal, and only condemned them if they got caught, because they got caught.

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't get it, what do Spartans have to do with this? ??? Unless of course there was a Spartan father breathing down my neck...

I do like the mastery part of stealth and as all things that have to do with it, all while hiding in plain sight. Well worth it.  

[Whitney]

I moved this to the philosophy forum since it doesn't have much to do with being an atheist since not all theists would be against stealing.

Personally I don't want to live in a society where stealing is encouraged so I wouldn't want to instill the value of stealth in children.  If you want an example of modern micro-societies where such action is encouraged look at gang culture.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't admire the Spartans, perhaps their celebration of violence and enslaving others was necessary for survival, hopefully it is no longer necessary. 

[xSilverPhinx]

I think they're interesting sociologically and historically, plus there were none more warrior-like tough than them. They really lived in a life really geared for war.

[Asmodean]

Stealth is not everyone's way. Whoever wants to know it, should learn it. Those who prefer to move openly and on a massive scale in stead, should master that. Basically, master what you think you can be good at. Fuck the rest.

there were none more warrior-like tough than them

The Hun? The Samurai..?

In any case, is always being ready for war something to admire? I would say no, as I admire those who manage to get their asses out of a war situation intact more than those who try to get in.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I moved this to the philosophy forum since it doesn't have much to do with being an atheist since not all theists would be against stealing.

I'd like to meet the ones who aren't.  That was pretty much my agenda when I posted the topic.  I was looking for atheists who have jettisoned not only God but the rules (or at least some of the rules) that never had any justification but God's will - or the good of the collective, which typically gets conflated with God's will.

To me atheism only gets interesting when applied to ethics. 

Personally I don't want to live in a society where stealing is encouraged so I wouldn't want to instill the value of stealth in children.

Fair enough.  This triggers me to voice my view on what ethics is: the recommendation of behaviors logically consistent with one's values.  Thus ethics has a subjective component (values) and an objective component (logical consistency).  Much nonsense instantly evaporates if we acknowledge where the subjectivity resides (values) and where the objectivity resides (logical consistency) instead of trying to claim that all is subjective or all is objective.
 
I value honor (esteem public and private) and luxury (comfort, delight and convenience) so I recommend behaviors logically consistent with both, including stealth.  I think my cat Boots would agree, but that's a frivolity I toss in for the mere fun of it. 

  If you want an example of modern micro-societies where such action is encouraged look at gang culture.

Yes!  Good example.

[fester30]

I have a Toyota Prius (I'm an atheist, tree-hugging liberal Prius owner, but I am not a vegetarian... don't tell Toyota or they'll take the car back).  The models from 2010 on up have an Electric Vehicle mode, which turns off the gasoline engine if you're under 25 mph for about a mile (great for driving in my neighborhood).  The only problem is, people will walk, roller skate, wheel their wheel chairs, and ride their bikes right out in front of my car.  They don't even look, because they are accustomed to hearing a car coming, and can't hear mine coming.

We Prius owners call that "Stealth mode."

[Tank]

I have a Toyota Prius (I'm an atheist, tree-hugging liberal Prius owner, but I am not a vegetarian... don't tell Toyota or they'll take the car back).  The models from 2010 on up have an Electric Vehicle mode, which turns off the gasoline engine if you're under 25 mph for about a mile (great for driving in my neighborhood).  The only problem is, people will walk, roller skate, wheel their wheel chairs, and ride their bikes right out in front of my car.  They don't even look, because they are accustomed to hearing a car coming, and can't hear mine coming.

We Prius owners call that "Stealth mode."

Do you get extra points for surprise or less because it's considered cheating?

[Whitney]

I'd like to meet the ones who aren't.

There are plenty of theists out there who have no issues with stealing; they find ways to justify it even if they happen to also be religious theists....you can meet them in the jails.

[Whitney]

Fair enough.  This triggers me to voice my view on what ethics is: the recommendation of behaviors logically consistent with one's values.  Thus ethics has a subjective component (values) and an objective component (logical consistency).  Much nonsense instantly evaporates if we acknowledge where the subjectivity resides (values) and where the objectivity resides (logical consistency) instead of trying to claim that all is subjective or all is objective.

There is no point in ethics outside of social interaction so I think that how actions affect society as a whole are how one must determine their own values.  So, I ultimately don't see ethics as being subjective but rather objectively based on the needs of society; it's just very complicated to find the most logical values because it's hard to create set rules for all situations (and that is why we see cultural differences in ethical standards...we're still all trying to figure it out).

[Pharaoh Cat]

There is no point in ethics outside of social interaction so I think that how actions affect society as a whole are how one must determine their own values.  So, I ultimately don't see ethics as being subjective but rather objectively based on the needs of society; it's just very complicated to find the most logical values because it's hard to create set rules for all situations (and that is why we see cultural differences in ethical standards...we're still all trying to figure it out).

Depends on whether you really mean "needs" of society, or, rather, values of society.  The basis of need is survival.  It probably wouldn't be hard to reach a broad consensus around survival-friendly rules.  Like, don't shoot people, don't pollute the water, don't pollute the air, don't excrete on the lawn, don't leave corpses on the street corner.  In fact, this consensus is largely in place already, codified into law.

Values, on the other hand, are much harder to reach consensus around - because they're subjective.  Any society-based ethics will follow the formula I laid out - values (subjective) and then logically consistent behaviors (objective) - because there isn't any other formula available.  People will try to pretend their societal values are objective but they'll be fooling themselves.  Shall we make education a societal value?  That's subjective.  If we like education, we will, if we don't like it or are apathetic toward it, we won't.  Shall we make physical fitness a societal value?  Subjective again.  Do we like physical fitness, dislike it, or shrug and yawn when we think about it?

Incidentally, what you said about there being no point in ethics outside of social interaction is only true if we equate ethics strictly with morality.  Doing that is a Christian thing, a Jewish thing, a Muslim thing... but doesn't have to be an atheist thing.  The ancient Greeks didn't do it.  For the ancient Greeks, ethics was the study of how the wise would behave, and the wise were those people who had learned best how to be happiest.  I follow the Greeks.  Values, for me, are those principles I equate with personal happiness.  If I am wise, then, I will identify those principles for myself, and then behave in a manner logically consistent with those principles. 
 

[xSilverPhinx]

there were none more warrior-like tough than them

The Hun? The Samurai..?

They were, but still as a society the Spartans win. They took it to the extreme as in actually trying to make people into war machines from birth.

In any case, is always being ready for war something to admire? I would say no, as I admire those who manage to get their asses out of a war situation intact more than those who try to get in.

I agree with this. I would say that always being ready for hardships and adversity is something that I see as useful. The Spartan example was my more hypervigilant side talking...

People who go looking for violent wars can be easily classified as stupid. They rarely know what they're getting into. Hence one part of the stupidity...