(Notes: This is an attempt at a comprehensive talk on karma, however is not intended to be an end all be all explanation/critique of karma; I realize there will be more to discuss).
Karma is a philosophical concept that stipulates that if an individual acts good than they will receive good in kind. Conversely if someone acts in a bad manner they will receive bad.
Simply put and perhaps the best way to put it: “What goes around, comes around.”
I won't start with trying to define what is “good” or what is “bad.” That will take much longer and is not really within the scope of my up-coming argument. For my purposes, “good” is just what you would generally define as “good” and “bad” is the same.
What I will start with it something that I find is frustrating but important. When every you want to make the argument that something causes something else, you always have to think of other possible causes.
If you believe if, X1 → Y than you'd have to show that other reasonable values of X are not responsible for Y.
If you believe in Karma, than your good actions (X1) causes good things to happen to you (Y). However, you have to look at other possibilities, what else could cause Y? Lets looked at this specifically. Your good actions, helping an old lady across the street for example, caused the cashier at the grocery store to be really pleasant to you. However, what if the cashier was just pleasant to you (Y) because he/she was having a good day (X2).
If this is true than X2 → Y, and X1 did not cause Y.
You can get around this, of course, by saying that X1 and X2 cause Y. But that raises many more questions. Which is more important X1 or X2? Are both necessary? In the first case, you would have to change you definition of karma. In the second case, it decreases the relevance of karma: Random happenings + Your actions are necessary for an outcome.
If your willing to change the definition of karma that good/bad actions increase the possibility (but does not cause) of good/bad rewards than it is hard to argue against it.
To argue against it one would need a more philosophical and anecdotal argument than a pseudo-scientific approach. (You could theoretically try to measure the possible effects of karma in a scientific experiment but the methodology would be difficult to workout, and it would be difficult or impossible to find a natural mechanism for it).
The inherit problem with karma is that, somewhat mentioned above, is that you cannot find a natural mechanism for it. What could possibly cause good/bad rewards because of good/bad actions? What particle or force can be reasonable for it? How does it judge what actions are good or bad? There would have to be universal “goods” and “bads” and they would have to applicable to every possible situation.
Furthermore, there is defiantly plenty of anecdotal evidence for karma but there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence against it. There are plenty of people who “got what they deserved” but there are also plenty of examples of people who didn't get punished at all, or who got less than what they deserved.
Overall, I personally do not believe in karma. Too much uncertainty, too many other possible factors. This does not mean however, I have less respect for those who believe in karma.
Special Thanks to melodykia who discussed the topic with me and helped me better understand the pro-karma standpoint.
Her blog can be found here:
http://melodrama731.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment