Tl:dr OR ethical determinism equations

[Rashiminos]

I feel the whole bit of necessitated reincarnation (for that belief) is being glossed over so far in this thread. Multiple lives would permit such possibilities depending on the nature of such reincarnation. (Whether that 'karma' would be self-chosen or imposed by another agency is up for discussion).

In such a system, bias against those with defects may imply a forthcoming negative response to the person with the bias.

Of course, this woman may have delusional beliefs, in which case reality marches on. I suspect some of the posters in the thread are displaying similar thinking patterns as compared to the woman (at least as presented), differing in some minor details. I cannot say much further on that given the nature of how the beliefs were presented (Kyriakos is a third-party, and an emotionally oppositional one at that).

 

[duckstab]

First, I agree it's detestable to denigrate others for their misfortunes. The only proper and ethical response to human suffering is compassion for that suffering and taking action, where possible, to alleviate it.

The notion of karma is central to Buddhism, Hinduism, and other less-known Eastern religions. I don't fully subscribe to it myself -- in particular I can't quite bring myself to believe in rebirth or the carrying over of karma from one life to the next. But I think it's also the case that, here in the West, it's probably the most single misunderstood concept from those religions.

If nothing else, thinking that karma means somebody is suffering because "they deserve it" just points to the thinker's own ignorance and delusion -- and that's bad karma in itself.

 

[timtofly]

I would abort my unborn child if the fetus is deformed.

Then you would not even give that soul a chance to "right" a "wrong"?

If this were true, I was Hitler in my past life.

I am pretty sure Hitler would have to have been aborted a lot more times before given a chance to make things right.

Just from an "abortion is legal" standpoint reincarnation will never work for a lot of people. Unless being aborted itself is a way to make things right?

 

[Oruc]

I once had a discussion with a hardcore spiritualist, and she claimed that (something which amazed me due to its cruelty) people who are born with genetic deformities are this way because they did something horrible in a previous life, and thus now have to cleanse the negative energy by suffering in their turn.

At first i was almost enraged by this view. It seems such a cruel thing to claim, and anyone who ever felt miserable will know that hearing such a view could help him in no way at all. In fact it could even do him harm.

Then i thought that having such a view must be really soothing for her, to think that there exists an ethically-based determinism in regards to who suffers and how much; it would seem to allow her to be of the view that she won't ever meet any serious harm.

But ultimately it appeared shortsighted. Of course anyone can play games with thoughts and come up with systems of thinking in which the variables are arranged in such a way so as to lead to one or other conclusion. But it seems that too many variables have to be either put aside, or incorrectly assessed, for such a conclusion to appear.

TL: DR: What would you think if faced with the argument that suffering is an equation of wrong-doing in past lives? And does such a view have anything positive in your opinion, or is it just a crude defense mechanism for the person holding it?

Lots of people believe in Karma, I just think they are wrong as I dont share their belief in Karma.

 

[Elrohir]

TL: DR: What would you think if faced with the argument that suffering is an equation of wrong-doing in past lives? And does such a view have anything positive in your opinion, or is it just a crude defense mechanism for the person holding it?

I think this view inevitably runs smack into our moral intuitions: more specifically, that helping people who need help is a moral good, and not doing so may (or is) a moral evil.

After all, if that starving African kid is suffering for the poor 'karma' he accumulated in his previous life as a serial rapist, why exactly should I help him? If I feed him, I'm presumably lessening his 'punishment' which defeats the purpose if the punishment is just. (If it's not uniformly just, then I think this is a rather useless point: since we have no way of knowing for sure which person's punishment is just or unjust, I think general principles of compassion require us to treat everyone as if they've received an unjust burden in life.) So what is the reason to help anyone who is suffering? Why should we act contrary to the cosmic order?

In addition to being morally repugnant, this view is also potentially internally inconsistent. Moral teachings that say helping others is not good should, I think, be disregarded almost out of hand, and would be by most people. If that's the case, then people who choose to not help others are either incurring negative karma or lessening the positive karma that they're accruing -- which means that ignoring karmic retribution could in turn create further punishment. A cycle of indifference and punishment could result, which hardly seems either sensible or desirable.

In short, I think it's a highly dubious view that needs a lot more explaining in order to be a reasonable view. (And yes, I know I'm using the term 'karma' is a rather loose and somewhat inaccurate sense here. I'm being colloquial; sue me.)

 

[Yeekim]

I thought this was going to be a post arguing against internet abbreviations. I don't know most of them and a lot of times I sit around wondering what AFAIK means and other things. I still don't know what tl:dr means. I don't like them and I'm surprised to see a writer using them.

Just today I received a letter with "J" in the end. Had no idea what it means. Google gave me the answer in 5 seconds.

On topic: I'd console the person under question and say that everyone who suffers through indulging in philosophies like hers runs will probably pay whatever karmic debt s/he has and runs a decent chance of actually becoming less delusional and somewhat intelligent in next life.

 

[_random_]

I believe we have a moral obligation to help people in these situations, if this view says we don't, then we have a problem beyond the weirdness of the view itself.

I don't think it necessarily would lead to that conclusion. I believe that we should try to alleviate people's suffering without regard to their record of wrongs, and I don't see anything in this worldview that expressly contradicts that. There are, of course, plenty of people who believe it is not their duty to interfere with the work of Karma, and if all suffering is seen as a form of Karmaic retribution, this presents an obvious problem.

Personally, I don't find the idea that God or any other powers that be are concerned with the exact distribution of punishments entirely comforting, which is part of the reason I reject substiutionist soterieology.

 

[Perfection]

I don't think it necessarily would lead to that conclusion.

If you read my other post, you'll see me making a very similar point.

 

[_random_]

Whoops. Sorry about that. I replied to that post before I read any of the others in the thread. The rest of my post still stands though.

 

[amadeus]

Wouldn't the number of people (souls, spirits) need to remain static? If not, then how can the spiritualist say that they did something bad in a past life without knowing whether this person was not previously in existence?

 

[plarq]

Then you would not even give that soul a chance to "right" a "wrong"?



I am pretty sure Hitler would have to have been aborted a lot more times before given a chance to make things right.

Just from an "abortion is legal" standpoint reincarnation will never work for a lot of people. Unless being aborted itself is a way to make things right?

There's no reincarnation. Either you're a Christian/Muslim who don't have an afterlife in this world, or you're an atheist who don't have afterlife at all.

 

[aronnax]

I disagree completely with you I'm afraid.

Why this view is flawed on a personal level:
She can only too easily extrapolate from this view that whatever befalls her (or blesses her) is due to something she's done in her past. It's a very laissez-faire personal ideology which is lazy and brings her to believe that ultimately there's nothing she can do to change her fate. I deplore such intellectual laziness.

Why this view is flawed on in relation to others:
As a result of this view she then has easy ammunition against others based simply on their looks. At best she views genetically deformed people with pity

"Oh you must have done something wrong in your past life. You poor thing. You better atone for it"

At worst she views them with contempt:

"You disgusting creature. What terrible sin did you commit?"

As I mentioned in my other post, in such a system, I'll imagine that if you are cruel to those who are not enduring their "Karmatic" punishment, then you yourself are tossed into the next life of bad luck and bad breaks. Kindness is not reserved for the kind. We don't abuse prisoners do we?

It makes her quite an unpleasant person to deal with, because she explicitly judges your character based on how you look, and no matter what you say you won't change her opinion that you must've done something wrong previously.

That said, I'm not defending this woman's view as much as I am defending the concept of reincarnation. This woman sounds lazy, self-serving and has created a way of thinking that allows her to punish others but save herself.

You assign far more consistency to religious beliefs and actions than they deserve.

When it comes to understanding religion, we do have to do that.

 

[berkut]

TL: DR: What would you think if faced with the argument that suffering is an equation of wrong-doing in past lives? And does such a view have anything positive in your opinion, or is it just a crude defense mechanism for the person holding it?

My Dad thinks like that yet I fail to see such a vengefull figure in Jesus. He seens to hold to this believe due to his strict sense of justice, like it makes more real the feeling that wrong doers are going to be punished severely.

 

[duckstab]

Wouldn't the number of people (souls, spirits) need to remain static? If not, then how can the spiritualist say that they did something bad in a past life without knowing whether this person was not previously in existence?

The theory is that new souls are constantly being created, but it takes them a while to develop into something that's strong enough to inhabit a human form. So any human being would have to have a fairly old soul.

 

[El_Machinae]

What are the spiritual implications, then, if we move into a world where fewer and fewer babies have genetic deformities?

 

[Kyriakos]

What are the spiritual implications, then, if we move into a world where fewer and fewer babies have genetic deformities?

Potentially varying infinitesimally from the past, since 'punishment' can happen by other means.
Even in a utopia where all serious illnesses and accidents are made right, one could still face enormous degrees of pain, a lot more than the next person, and thus such theories can cling on to life still.

 

[katipunero]

I once had a discussion with a hardcore spiritualist, and she claimed that (something which amazed me due to its cruelty) people who are born with genetic deformities are this way because they did something horrible in a previous life, and thus now have to cleanse the negative energy by suffering in their turn.

At first i was almost enraged by this view. It seems such a cruel thing to claim, and anyone who ever felt miserable will know that hearing such a view could help him in no way at all. In fact it could even do him harm.

Then i thought that having such a view must be really soothing for her, to think that there exists an ethically-based determinism in regards to who suffers and how much; it would seem to allow her to be of the view that she won't ever meet any serious harm.

But ultimately it appeared shortsighted. Of course anyone can play games with thoughts and come up with systems of thinking in which the variables are arranged in such a way so as to lead to one or other conclusion. But it seems that too many variables have to be either put aside, or incorrectly assessed, for such a conclusion to appear.

TL: DR: What would you think if faced with the argument that suffering is an equation of wrong-doing in past lives? And does such a view have anything positive in your opinion, or is it just a crude defense mechanism for the person holding it?

karmic cycles and reincarnation is a belief system that i find hellish, and of which I think offers no balming relief to my conscience and sense of responsibility whatsoever. living once in this planet is probably suffering enough, but to be born again multiple times until you get things right and achieve "nirvana" is just in and of itself a harsh and cruel punishment. it's like groundhog day only that the reset intervals is an entire lifetime.

your hardcore spiritualist friend must have conveniently omitted this part of her belief system for her to stay calm and relaxed at the prospect of doing life over and over again. sure she loses all memory of suffering and whatnot in her past lives, but if only for that sincere belief in reincarnation, she really has to wonder if her current life is the last in an infinite series. if not then what's stopping her from living a despicable life and then credit the penalty as a carry over to her next life?

 

[Kyriakos]

karmic cycles and reincarnation is a belief system that i find hellish, and of which I think offers no balming relief to my conscience and sense of responsibility whatsoever. living once in this planet is probably suffering enough, but to be born again multiple times until you get things right and achieve "nirvana" is just in and of itself a harsh and cruel punishment. it's like groundhog day only that the reset intervals is an entire lifetime.

your hardcore spiritualist friend must have conveniently omitted this part of her belief system for her to stay calm and relaxed at the prospect of doing life over and over again. sure she loses all memory of suffering and whatnot in her past lives, but if only for that sincere belief in reincarnation, she really has to wonder if her current life is the last in an infinite series. if not then what's stopping her from living a despicable life and then credit the penalty as a carry over to her next life?

I guess she would not act in ways she perceives as harmful (which is not to say that she is not potentially very harmful already) also out of fear that in a following life she will be in a worse position to reach the state of completion of the journey on the earth.

Personally i think that it is hard to accept that some people suffer enormously, although then again it does not appear to be at all a direct outcome of their arguably 'real' bad situation; for example i have seen maimed people who seemed rather joyous, and then i have seen people who are on the surface fine, but are lost in incredible misery.
However it does seem somewhat shocking to think that some people end up losing their arms in some civil war in Africa, due to detestable tyranny of others, and then other people lead a nice life in some developed country while being total scum in regards to their attitudes to others. I guess i can relate to how one would find it soothing to think that there is a punishment of ethical misbehaving, and that this punishment goes beyond the current lifetime. But then again i see no reason to actually hold that as a belief of my own.

 

[El_Machinae]

Potentially varying infinitesimally from the past, since 'punishment' can happen by other means.
Even in a utopia where all serious illnesses and accidents are made right, one could still face enormous degrees of pain, a lot more than the next person, and thus such theories can cling on to life still.

So, is the pain caused by 'natural' processes distinguished from suffering caused by the evil of others?

 

[Kyriakos]

So, is the pain caused by 'natural' processes distinguished from suffering caused by the evil of others?

It would make sense to, after all even in western medicine (starting with Hippocrates) the idea that illnesses are not just somatic but psychosomatic phenomena exists.

Also the evil done by others has another distinctive quality; it supposedly has a karmic effect on them as well.

There can be a lot of equations about this, problem is it is utterly unprovable obviously.