Explain, please, your True/False answer. Where I refer to evil and good, I mean moral evil or moral good, so don't go off on the other senses or uses of the words 'good' and 'evil'.
TWH 08162006
2006-08-16 07:09:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
People always need more info before they can answer--its often a dodge to avoid giving an answer qualified in some way. It is those types of qualified creative, insightful answers one is looking for. Self-awareness is a simultaneous sense of both separation and unity with the rest of the universe. Life forms lacking that sense of awareness which is necessary for the self to hold itself accountable(therefore having no conscience) for its actions,have no need for the concepts of evil or good. TWH 08232006
2006-08-22 19:44:53 · update #1
If you lack the ability to know Good and Evil, your actions can't be classified in this manner. In the plant world invasive species are not evil, it's just displacing species that are less suited to the area.
2006-08-16 08:35:10 · answer #1 · answered by ormus 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True. In the eyes of the ultimate creator, there is no good and evil, but only experience. Since all that exists originates from the same place, everything is part of it and therefore neither good or evil. Morality is a human concept. Lack of self-awareness means lack of free will and therefore, lack of Karma associated with the results of actions. The results of actions can be creative or destructive, but through Karma, balance will be found.
2006-08-23 00:48:54 · answer #2 · answered by R. F 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would go with true. If there is no awareness, then all actions are instinctual, and environmentally based. Just because a bear mauls a person, does that make the bear bad? No, the bear is merely either protecting itself from a perceived threat, or is hungry, and taking advantage of a slow and tasty prey.
If a life-form has awareness, and refuses to morally improve itself and its surroundings because of laziness or lack of concern for its fellows, is this evil? Absolutely, and the reason mankind is suffering.
2006-08-16 14:22:42 · answer #3 · answered by lowflyer1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its behavior could still be classified under good or evil. Though, he/she does not know it, he/she is doing something good or evil. The thing is, newborn children are so innocent that they do not know good and evil so they could be classified under this category. In that case, life forms that lack self-awareness could gain this conscience and later on, he/she will learn if its behaviors are classified as good or evil. Since they are not aware, they themselves couldn't classify it but we can.
2006-08-21 06:26:36 · answer #4 · answered by DJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Lacks self-awareness"? Explain. On many levels, an infant lacks self-awareness. Is an infant good or evil? Need more information to respond.
2006-08-16 14:15:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. "A life form that lacks self-awareness and has no conscience... " Don't you think this description fits babies?
Babies lacks self-awareness and don't know why they are there... they probably don't even know their existence...that's why they don't know what's good and evil... that's why we need to teach them as they grow.
2006-08-16 15:18:35 · answer #6 · answered by Kimi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
TRUE:
One basic element that makes an act morally qualifiable is conscious desicion. If no consciousness, if no capacity to decide then is not moral (no moral value attached), is just an impulse, a reaction or a conditioned behaviour.
2006-08-16 14:17:45 · answer #7 · answered by Dominicanus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
works for me.
good and evil is subjective anyway.
2006-08-16 14:14:13 · answer #8 · answered by ceprn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋