Karma - A rational approach

[gc]

If this man did not experience "karma" (or moral payback or whatever you want to call it) how could it possibly exist for anyone else?

Pangloss

I'm not saying that karma is perfect, or that everyone gets exactly what they deserve. What I am saying is that there is some effect of your actions on your own life, as described above. It doesn't mean that good things will always happen to good people, or bad things will always happen to bad people. What it means is that it is more likely for good things to happen to good people.

 

[gc]

For Karma to work, a hugely able intelligence must be in charge. So I should think if you believe in karma, you also believe in God.

No need for God. Karma, as I have described it, works because our "good" actions make us feel good about ourselves, that gives us confidence and improves our own lives. Why would God be needed for that?

 

[Pangloss]

So, really, GC, if I understand you (which I might not, of course):

"Karma" sometimes works, sometimes not at all. Maybe it rarely works for people who do bad things - getting rich off the effort of others, for example - and maybe people who do good things get a warm fuzzy feeling, but are otherwise screwed by the bad people.

It doesn't take a lot of thinking to come up with a whole bunch of folks who fit the second group, sadly.

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people, and sometimes good things happen to good people, but there is no way to predict who will get what, when.

"Karma" is starting to sound like the random circumstances of everyday life.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to understand what you are claiming.

It often amounts to the same thing. . .

Pangloss

 

[gc]

So, really, GC, if I understand you (which I might not, of course):

"Karma" sometimes works, sometimes not at all. Maybe it rarely works for people who do bad things - getting rich off the effort of others, for example - and maybe people who do good things get a warm fuzzy feeling, but are otherwise screwed by the bad people.

It doesn't take a lot of thinking to come up with a whole bunch of folks who fit the second group, sadly.

What I am saying is that most people get a negative feeling when they do something bad. In other words they feel guilty about it, because we have evolved to feel guilty for bad things we have done. Of course there are exceptions, like your example of tobacco companies etc. If you don't feel guilty for what you are doing, then my idea of karma doesn't work. But for most of us, tobacco executives excluded, we feel guilty when we do something bad. Likewise, we feel good when we do something good. That much I think is pretty obvious.

The part that is harder to grasp and/or believe is that the "good" or "bad" feelings we get can influence our lives. Have you ever noticed that when you have more confidence, things seem to go better? Would you rather go to a job interview when you are in a bad mood, or when you are feeling good about yourself? What I am trying to say here is that doing good things not only gives us that "warm fuzzy feeling" but that the warm fuzzy feeling actually improves our own lives in a tangible way.

 

[Pangloss]

Ok, so again trying to understand:

This is about feelings.

Bad feelings sometimes, but not always, follow doing a bad thing. Bad feelings sometimes make us less adept at negotiating the world successfully.

Good feelings sometimes, but not always, follow doing a good thing. Good feelings sometimes make us more adept at negotiating the world successfully.

Am I getting closer to understanding you?

Pangloss

 

[gc]

Ok, so again trying to understand:

This is about feelings.

Bad feelings sometimes, but not always, follow doing a bad thing. Bad feelings sometimes make us less adept at negotiating the world successfully.

Good feelings sometimes, but not always, follow doing a good thing. Good feelings sometimes make us more adept at negotiating the world successfully.

Am I getting closer to understanding you?

Pangloss

Yes, exactly.:smile:

 

[Pangloss]

Cool. Thank you for your patience.

Pangloss

 

[s_lone]

For Karma to work, a hugely able intelligence must be in charge. So I should think if you believe in karma, you also believe in God. Who else could keep track of the trillions of cause and effect relationships that must achieve balance? Karma suggests an immensely well organized universe. Something much above our ken.

Why couldn't karma be defined and fixed like the natural laws of physics? From the moment the supposed 'karmic principles' are fixed and clearly 'established', I don't see how the existence or at least the active participation of God would be necessary.

I totally agree that karma suggests an immensely well organized universe. But the universe already seems immensely well organized without our assurance that karma truly exists... At that point, the existence of God remains a question of faith.

 

[s_lone]

And as for the generous people, I totally agree with you, El Barto. Moreover, I would include "kind" people as well. Whenever I come across a person, whose main characteristic, in everyone else's eyes, is that he or she is very kind, I try to stay away from that person. And I find that I am mostly right about that.

That's a rather interesting statement Vereya...

I would say that the good kind of kindness comes out of love. The bad kind of kindness comes out of fear (fear of being rejected, fear of divine judgement...)

---

I find being kind in a truly selfless way (without any form of personal gratification) is extremely hard. But one thing I find a lot easier is to not be mean and try our best not to hurt others. I think selfishness arises from lack of love. But I tend to think wickedness is something on its own that we must be aware of...

 

[#juan]

Well, common usage changes the meanings of words, that's how language evolves, and I'm not one of those language Nazis who insist that words have precise and fixed meanings. They obviously don't. To take the most obvious example, the word 'gay' currently means something totally different from what it meant only 40 years ago. I don't know what other word you could have chosen, and it was perfectly clear what you meant, so that probably justifies your usage of it, but the word still has mystic overtones that you clearly didn't mean. I just tend to be a little pedantic sometimes. I'm sure that in the interests of improving your karma, you'll forgive me that... ;-)

Well I still mourn the loss of the perfectly good adjective,"gay". Now we have to say "full of high spirited merriment" or "bright and pleasant" or "promoting a feeling of cheer". None of these quite replaces that simple three letter word. I don't know if the term "gaiety"has been stolen as well. The following phrase: "A gay old blade with an eye for the ladies" is gone forever since a "gay old blade" would now likely have an eye for the laddies. There used to be songs with the line "happy and gay" in them.....Oh well...:roll:;-)

 

[tamarin]

Juan, we are all diminished when our language is. To lose words is akin to losing a member of the family. Nothing can bring them back.

 

[Pangloss]

Juan, we are all diminished when our language is. To lose words is akin to losing a member of the family. Nothing can bring them back.

I know, this thread is veering way off topic but. . .

Is the evolution of a word a loss? Sure it loses the old definition, but that is only because more people are using it in the new way than the old one.

Our undisciplined mongrel slattern of a language is great precisely because it is undisciplined, a mongrel and a slattern.

Pangloss

 

[tamarin]

English has always been a tramp and suitors constantly seek her hand and bed. But as a justice in Family Court would say: "What about the children?"

 

[Curiosity]

Well said Tamarin - English is a tramp - I have thought of it as a patchwork quilt constantly being amended and sorted out - or worse a bastard language

Interesting about Mengela Pangloss but we don't know what his dreams and reflections were after his hideous deeds were finished. Perhaps he was had such a cold insanity of intellect, he was able to push his former life as a Nazi experimenter into the shadows and forget.

There are some who suffer that disease - absolutely without conscience or regard for others. Empty suits.

I believe pure charity or deeding or giving is only effective when done without thought of recompense in any way. I thoroughly believe in it - but I am probably bargaining with God all the same whether I acknowledge it or not.

 

[Pangloss]

Curiosity:

Here is where we try to rationalize the idea that "nobody ever really gets away with it." So what if Mengele (or any other person who does bad things) has guilt or nightmares or regrets?

Those are internal states that don't necessarily have any effect on that person's behaviour and hence, on anyone else. People also are very good at lying about what they feel.

There is an old principle of law that "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." This applies to all areas of human life: when someone is seen to get away with evil, our trust and faith in our society being just is sorely tested.

But of course it's almost intolerable for most of us to live in an indifferent world where "pimps and thieves run wild" and we are effectively powerless to stop it. So, we come up with rationalizations where payback comes to them in their dreams or the afterlife or in being reincarnated as a bug.

The empty suits you refer to - psychopaths. Stephen Hare has written a fantastic book on the subject: "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World Of Psychopaths Among Us." In his book, psychopaths are indeed a sad lot, in that they are isolated from introspection or identifying any emotional state they happen to be in. But do they regret what they do? Not really. They tend to blame whoever they've wronged.

Now here's the rub: what about somebody who has done horrible wrong but thinks they were right? Pol Pot comes to mind. Leader of the Khmer Rouge, architect of the Killing Fields, this man was unquestionably evil, but he died an old man, still convinced he was right.

Where's the Karma?

Nowhere to be found.

Pangloss

 

[Curiosity]

Pangloss

What if Karma is actually a ripple affect wherein those harmed by cruelty from others actually receive a benefit in Karma when the 'evil doer' is finally put out of business, dead or executed, or ....

Nope that won't work - the dead of the holocaust received no Karmic benefits.

My head just quit!

 

[Pangloss]

I dig writing with you, Curiosity.

Pangloss

 

[Curiosity]

Thanks Pangloss

Your posts are imaginative and a challenge to me - afraid you are miles ahead of me in thought but appreciate you don't lose patience with me stumbling around....

At the moment I have Friday brain ... deep fried

Looked up your name - Panglossianism .... great stuff to play on words....

 

[gc]

Interesting that this article just happened to come out right after my post: Link

"Yes, helping others makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but new research suggests that doing good deeds can actually help people live longer, healthier lives. Siri Agrell explains why positive action may be better than popping pills"

Maybe I'm right after all