I imagine they would occur, unless there is an economic system that makes it as easy/easier to satiate desires (while abstaining from psychopathic behavior).

A capitalist system provides incentives for behavior that can be considered psychopathic.

Any system that allows exploitation for profit without providing a greater/easier/equal way to obtain profit not based in exploitation will do the same.

If capitalism is a game that rewards but does not punish (a secret) lack of ethics and punishes but does not reward those with ethics then undoubtedly it is a safe assumption to say that Capitalism rewards "individuals with no empathy or remorse who are good at emulating to have them".

Is your enjoyment of things based heavily on the certainty of their reality?
Ex: Sex - do you enjoy it for the sensations or the chance that it is certain.
Can you enjoy anything while while being certain it's fake? How about while unsure?

If a fake sunset was indiscernible to you from a real one is just the added info that one did happen and the other didn't enough to make one enjoyable to you and the other not?

I concede the added context of experiences being definitely fake or real can modify enjoyment but for something like [viewing a sunset] I don't see how. (any explanation would be appreciated)

Q: "How can I enjoy things if I can't be certain they are happening?"

A: If certainty is your prerequisite for enjoyment then you can't.
A: If certainty is neither the prerequisite or the primary factor then you simply will.

My "form of skepticism" is not my view of reality nor am I asserting it to be true as such its refutations are a non issue.

The example offered served as a basis for reasoning to allow one of OP's conclusions to be true. specifically Conclusion (2)

thinking that I think it would? — Kranky

.

Clarified Example
If OP assumes he/she is being deceived into believing that he/she can think (have or generate an idea, belief or opinion) and believes that instead something else is happening rendering their "thinking" somehow "fake" then OP can consider their second conclusion "Thinking that I think it would?" correct. Again this example is not an assertion of truth value but an axiom which enables a logical path to the OP's second conclusion.

Of course this is just a guess at what OP means when OP states
1) "thinking that I think it would?"
2) "Think that I think his punch would hurt?"
3) "If I cannot be certain that I am standing therethinking it would hurt, wouldn't I in fact be thinking that I think it would hurt? But then equally, I wouldn't be certain of that either."

As I am uncertain of the OP's reasoning I took a second guess based on the above statements.
[If I can't be certain I am thinking wouldn't I be thinking that I think?] OP should be certain though unless OP believed they could be tricked, in which case OP could not determine thinking = real thinking via "Cogito, ergo sum" as if they did accept this proposition OP would be certain they are thinking by virtue of thinking and not wonder am I just "thinking that I think?"

OP could simply be concerned with the discrepancy of "thinking" vs "thinking that I think".

OP could be basing their confusion of whether a thought of potential punch induced pain is "thinking" or "thinking that I think" on something else entirely.

In conclusion the example or "form of skepticism" as you put it serves as a basis for reasoning that results in OP's conclusion #(2) and logically connects OP's usage of "thinking that I think" and two implications drawn from OP's statements.
A) Certainty of Existence= I am thinking
&
B)Uncertainty of Existence= I might be thinking or might be thinking that I'm thinking "but then equally, I wouldn't be certain of that either" (based on OP's uncertainty of the existence of their self/their thoughts)

-

:lol:

Sorry to be confusing. What I'm asking is — Kranky

If you would care to clear the confusion, knowing how you define: "I", "exist" and "think"/"thought" would enable a clear answer.

Paraphrased: [If I' cant be certain I'm doing something (standing + thinking), wouldn't I just be thinking that I'm doing something?]

It doesn't matter if you are certain [about you standing + thinking]

If you are doing it, it is happening. (Even if You are uncertain, still happening)
if you aren't doing it, it isn't happening. (Even if You are uncertain, still not happening)

If it is certain that you are standing and thinking "will the punch hurt?"
Then your option (1) "1) Think that his punch would hurt" is correct.

If it is certain that you are not standing and thinking "will the punch hurt?"
Then your option (2) "2) Think that I think his punch would hurt?" is correct.

:lol:

If I were to internally ask myself, for example, if the punch would hurt, would I be thinking it would or thinking that I think it would? — Kranky

Hello Kranky,

When you think the thought "Mike Tyson's punch to my face will (probably) hurt" whether or not you can be certain you are really thinking it, you are still just thinking it if you are/not thinking it if you aren't.

So from your 2 options
(1) Would I be thinking it or (2) Would I be thinking that I think it

I would say that (1) is correct, because you would be thinking it.

I would say (2) is incorrect because if you are thinking about thinking something you are contemplating your thoughts on the subject not just contemplating the subject.

Further Explanation:

When you posted this discussion you probably did both options (1) and then (2):

(1) You thought about posting ["thinking it"]
Example: I am confused, I should post on the Philosophy Forum.

You are thinking "I should post on Philo Forum"

(2) You might have thought about your thought to post ["thinking that I think it"]
Example: I thought I should post on the Philosophy Forum.. or did I?

You are thinking that you think/thought "I should post on Philo Forum"

Disclaimer to answer !
You can theoretically do (1) and (2) but I don't think it is physically possible to do them at the same time. If you can think about thoughts at the exact same time that you are thinking/generating those thoughts then your answer is actually both (1) and (2). If this is the case it should be noted that you are superhuman.

Conclusion

Unless you are superhuman Kranky (1) is the correct answer.

I apologize if I misunderstood your inquiry and provided you a wall of irrelevance.

Hey hks, I was hoping to get your perspective on 6 & 7 on your list. "6 - Boys should never hit girls. 7 - Girls should not hit each other."

Do you also feel that boys should not hit each other and that girls should not hit boys (Generally) ?
Sorry if your rule#2 "Not to hurt anybody else." was meant to already imply either/both of those things and rule 6 + 7 are separate rules from #2 to stress their importance, I just wanted to be clear.

Additionally, I grew up being taught #6 on your list "Boys should never hit girls." and while I agree and think it is important enough to be stated separately I think the insistence on boys specifically not hitting girls can undermine girls and potentially send the wrong message to boys, thoughts?

Hello Dexter,

Firstly, Forgive me If my post is so late as to be irrelevant at this point.

In regards to love and the many forms it may take, I believe love can be unified if defined as genuine affection and concern for something be it a family member, friend, lover, passion, deity etc. While one may wish to express their love to a family member and a lover differently the underlying affection and the concern said affection spawns seems to be the motivation in common.

Do you not believe that could cause harm to a student or give them a reason to not do justice if they are not guided? Plato states, "a man who acts morally always ends up worse off than a guy who acts immorally." — Dexter

Regarding your concerns in leaving students unguided in their discovery of moral philosophy, I can understand, especially as we both see at least some truth value in Plato's statement. As for this specific case motivation must be offered for children and adults both to remain moral despite this disadvantage. I believe that generally there are no material rewards to be gained, for someone to choose morality even in the face of this truth they would have to be motivated by the desire to be good for its own sake. Achieving your moral ambition enables you to respect yourself, likely inspire others and reduce if even just an increment the cruel nature of reality. If liberty from your baser self and self respect are insufficient motivators than I suppose that the statement should be delivered with caution if at all.

Finally as for the ethics and morals I believe most important for your pupils to learn:

1) Compassion - To understand and empathize is to learn, to broaden perspective and enable genuine connection through your mutual understanding and bridging of the fundamental isolation of our subjective self aware existences.

2) Honesty- Beyond refraining from deception large or small, to face the truth of ones self be it good or bad allows an opportunity to truly connect to people, to improve and enjoy the truth. With no need to lie nor a desire to do so, one is always free, and can really be seen for who they are.

3) Bravery- To be honest one may have to face harsh truths, to be compassionate one must feel others pain and both tasks are arduous but If a person can face these fears they will have all they need to be a Genuine, Empathetic and Understanding being. To try and become such a person would be a goal virtuous enough, but were they to achieve this goal they would be pleasant company to any of our kind.
Shining Exemplars of our otherwise often cruel, arrogant and cowardly race.