Karma Chamleon, You Come and Go...

Actually, one thing that does not "come and go" is my conclusion on the concept known as "Karma". That conclusion is pretty much concrete, and in a word, I would say it's bunk. If someone asks me to believe in "Karma" - and to be clear, I'm talking about the Buddhist/Hindu philosophy that one's actions in life determine their fate in the next life - what they are implicitly asking me to believe is that a rape victim deserved to raped. They are asking me to believe that a victim of child molestation deserved to be molested. If someone got screwed over big-time? They deserved it.

Another really good clue that "Karma" is likely bunk is when we consider that really, really bad things happen to really, really good people(and vice versa). Things get more complicated when we examine the notion that someone can do something really bad, but yet, still be an overall good person. Things get more complicated, still, when we consider that, in rare instances, being "bad" is actually the moral thing to do, where "bad" means being deliberately deceitful..e.g..lying or omitting truth.

It seems, then, that determining who's "good" and who's "bad" must then be taken on an individual, case-by-case basis, along with the motives in question. Before I go further, it's worth pointing out that anyone with the slightest knowledge of the concept of "Original Sin" should now be able to clearly see(if they didn't already see it) that said concept spits directly into the face of the individuality that I speak of above. But that is for another discussion.

So, some examples of what I'm talking about when I say "deliberately deceitful? These:

An elderly lady asks her grandson, "How does my new perfume smell?" And let's say for sake of discussion that the grandson thinks it smells like a cross between mothballs, rotten eggs, and baby powder.

So, should the grandson be forthright and blurt out the truth? Or is it fine for the grandson to lie to spare his grandmother's feelings being hurt?

Example 2: A man hears scratching and whimpering at his front door. Upon opening the door, a bloodied, crying dog comes hobbling in. The man cleans the dog up and gives it some food and water. A few minutes later there's a knock at the door. When the man opens the door, a deranged looking fellow with a small section of chain in his hand asks, "Have you seen my dog? That son of a b*tch got away from me again!".

Should the man be forthright and return the abused animal to the owner? Or would it be fine for him to lie and say, "Nope...'haven't seen your dog, sir"?  

I think that the sane and compassionate among us know that, in both of the above cases - and as well, in life in general - lying or omitting the truth is sometimes the moral/right thing to do, provided that it attempts to prevent unnecessary harm to others. Even if Karma were true, I would wager that its proponents would be lenient on those who lie or omit the truth, provided that it prevents harm to people and/or animals. And even if I could somehow believe in Karma, I would still say that only those who deliberately set out to cause harm would be the ones deserving of punishment in the next life, not those who lie or omit truth to prevent harm.

Amoral Vs Immoral

Previously I touched on the idea that there can be people who do bad things but who are still good people, overall. Conversely - and what can be an unsettling thought - is that there can be bad people who are still capable of doing good things. So, the next question then becomes, how would we know the difference between "good" overall people and "bad" overall people, if individuals from both groups do bad things? For starters, wouldn't those people who feel badly and who feel remorse when they do bad things be more likely to end up in the "over all good" group? Wouldn't those who learn from using poor judgment in the past be better candidates for the "over all good" group? It seems that this group would also be more apt to look for forgiveness when/if they commit an offense(assuming forgiveness is available, because, let's face it, many times it's not).

On the other side of the coin, there are those who are incapable of empathy, and these people would have a harder time learning from past indiscretions, since these people lack the empathy required to feel the pain of others. I don't think it's a coincidence that people who lack empathy are generally self-centered. They only need worry about themselves, after all. Other people's feelings don't matter. People who lack a moral sense, AKA, people who are amoral, just don't care.

With all of that said, I think it becomes very clear that "Karma" is way, way too simplistic of a concept to be a credible solution for the injustice we see in the world. Yes, we want the "cosmos"(or "God") to mete out justice. That is natural, I suppose. But the way we want things, and the way things are, are two different things.