40 ms·

I like the story, but I feel it's important to mention that the authors stated opinion on Karma is terrifying. Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, i

I like the story, but I feel it's important to mention that the authors stated opinion on Karma is terrifying. Karma is essentially the worst sort of belief, in that superficially it seems to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This appeals to a lot of people because of its clear "carrot/stick" mentality and overall simplicity. This is the "Just-World" hypothesis. In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort.

sudo_robin 13y ago
> In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Disagree - If some one is "less-fortunate" and you are in the capacity to help them, you accumulate the negative kind of karma by ignoring them. > Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. Maybe. But do not forget the implications on you for being a jerk. > It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort. Depends on how you take it.
- Afforess 13y ago
  Your interpretation of Karma may be correct, but I was responding to the author's views on Karma. I urge you to go read it again, his are the under-informed, dangerous sort.
flyinRyan 13y ago
Not to mention arguably the worst aspect of Karma belief: that the successful deserve it. This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.
- eshvk 13y ago
  The problem with a flowery eastern concept misinterpreted and adopted in the west is that the original meaning gets distorted. Karma is merely a way of understanding "cause and effect". > This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives. That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
  - akiselev 13y ago
    I don't know if my American history books were particularly biased (although I had a great and seemingly unbiased one in AP US History), but expressing aspiration through voting has been a long common thread through US history. For example, slaves were expensive so only a small small minority owned them. The vast majority supported it because (or at least some of the primary reasons cited by my history books) it a) established someone lower on the social ladder than them and b) they all aspired to the "American dream" which at that time was owning slaves and didn't want to end it before they even became wealthy.
    - eshvk 13y ago
      Yeah, I have heard of that narrative; Steinbeck did say “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”. I still find it patronizing; it is reductive. The model assumes a caricature of a poor man who votes for slavery in the hope of owning a slave one day. Maybe, he just doesn't like black people? Maybe, he worries that his precarious job will be lost by new competition? Maybe, Colonel George from the plantation threatened him if he votes for abolition?
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Interesting that not a single one of your proposed counter-options is any nicer than the one you dislike.
Spearchucker 13y ago
Philosophical perspectives on karma notwithstanding, I'm not sure I agree. You can ignore the less fortunate whether you believe in Karma, god or other imaginary friend. Second, at times it should be your obligation to be a jerk to others. Not saying always, but where not doing so puts you into a worse place than you would otherwise be, you should. To explain (followed by an extreme example): consider the most important things you need to accomplish in life (remember also that these will vary depending on what you intend to achieve with your life) - 1. Stay alive. You can't do squat if you're dead. 2. Love unconditionally, but take no crap. 3. And so on. If being an arse to someone keeps you alive then this may give you the opportunity to save your child's life. There are many less-extreme scenarios that are just as valid. Why, for example, does the FAA suggest putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others? PS. Everybody can be successful. Ref. Wallace D. Wattles' vol 1: The Science of Getting Rich
- Afforess 13y ago
  So Karma is right some of the time is your defense? A broken clock is right two times a day. I still wouldn't advocate replacing your functional clock with a broken one. Similarly, I don't advocate Karma because it's an extremely flawed philosophy.
  - Spearchucker 13y ago
    As opposed to... religion? Most of which endorse stoning, slavery and mutilation?
    - Kurtz79 13y ago
      As opposed to common sense.
gadders 13y ago
I would have thought it meant if you were a jerk to someone, then that would generate bad karma.
Ultron 13y ago
I just didn't see how karma fit in to the story. That said, anyone who is a friend of animals is a friend of mine.
nkohari 13y ago
This is a very superficial interpretation of the idea of karma. What you're describing is just someone rationalizing being a judgmental asshole. Karma is about "paying it forward", not in an attempt to gain the favor of the universe, but because it is the morally correct thing to do. If you believe in karma, you believe that the machinations of the universe will reward and punish justly, but you don't participate in the process directly. Individuals don't get to meter out "karmic retribution" to people they perceive to be unworthy.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  While I don't think that the author of the piece meant it this way: If I believe in Karma, arguably I believe that the best thing I can do is to fulfil my station in life as I aspire to break the cycle of rebirth. It's definitely worth remembering that Karma existed in a society that did have, and still does in some ways, a very strong caste system where the good of the society was often seen as a consequence of everyone doing their assigned role. Notably, in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the arguments that Krishna uses to convince Arjuna that he should fight against his own family is because it will fulfil his verdic duties - in this instance his station in life as a warrior.
seclorum 13y ago
Karma is not a dialectic, as if there is a synthesis/anti-syntheis position from which to posit the workings of Karmic responses. At the essence of anyone who wishes to live a better life, is responsibility. Karma is a cultural mechanic by which we humans can discuss the phenomenon of responsibility in a manner which, while it may be broken or incomplete, has indeed - by simple stint of communication - resulted in many an individual, family, group of people, improving their lives. A little more consciousness of the responsibility of the individual to interact with the wider universe, is all one can truly hope to 'gain' from a Karmic point of view. Just so its clear, I don't think Karma as you understand it is necessarily complete, or at least you cannot apply the dialectic materialist point of view, if you think you 'get' Karma.. imho, of course.
dschiptsov 13y ago
The more general and, perhaps, more correct notion of karma is dependent causation, which means that everything what we are is caused by our actions - thoughts, deeds, desires (including those in past lives.)) This concept, considered broadly, eliminates any kind of external, super-human forces, including deities and gods. It also opens the path for changes in oneself (a way to enlightenment) due to lack of any other obstacles but ones own mind. Our own actions is only part of the big notion, and of course, according to ancient teachings, "good" and "bad" doesn't exist outside ones mind, there are just actions and the objective reality, which just is.
cko 13y ago
That's a rather dogmatic way of thinking about karma. 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' Anguttara Nikaya 5.57 (translator: Thanissaro Bhikkhu) Lesson to self: practice noble habits and refrain from ignoble ones.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
> the authors stated opinion on Karma is terrifying. Man, people on this site overuse the word "terrifying."
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  "terrifying" "stunning" "I'm not so sure..." "I'm curious," "perhaps" "arguably" "How My Startup ____________ (In Other Words, Something That Is Not At All a How-To Article)"
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I don't really mind things that are said a lot, especially when they express genuine doubt, rather than people playing devil's advocate or intentionally muddying the waters with far-fetched speculation. My problem is the misuse of the word. "Terrifying" is to HN as "slightly concerning" is to real life. I do like your list, though.
rictic 13y ago
This belief is sometimes called the Just World Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

sudo_robin 13y ago

> In reality, this kind of thinking means that if you believe in Karma, you can ignore less-fortunates because clearly they screwed up their lives on their own. Disagree - If some one is "less-fortunate" and you are in the capacity to help them, you accumulate the negative kind of karma by ignoring them. > Conversely, you can get away with being a jerk to people, because they probably deserved it anyway. Maybe. But do not forget the implications on you for being a jerk. > It is a self-reinforcing bias of the worst sort. Depends on how you take it.

Afforess 13y ago
Your interpretation of Karma may be correct, but I was responding to the author's views on Karma. I urge you to go read it again, his are the under-informed, dangerous sort.

flyinRyan 13y ago

Not to mention arguably the worst aspect of Karma belief: that the successful deserve it. This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives.

eshvk 13y ago
The problem with a flowery eastern concept misinterpreted and adopted in the west is that the original meaning gets distorted. Karma is merely a way of understanding "cause and effect". > This kind of belief is what causes so many people in America to vote squarely against their own interests for their entire lives. That is patronizing. There is a wide spectrum of reasons why one might say vote for lower/higher taxes between "they worked hard, so they deserve it" and "fuck you, I want mine".
- akiselev 13y ago
  I don't know if my American history books were particularly biased (although I had a great and seemingly unbiased one in AP US History), but expressing aspiration through voting has been a long common thread through US history. For example, slaves were expensive so only a small small minority owned them. The vast majority supported it because (or at least some of the primary reasons cited by my history books) it a) established someone lower on the social ladder than them and b) they all aspired to the "American dream" which at that time was owning slaves and didn't want to end it before they even became wealthy.
  - eshvk 13y ago
    Yeah, I have heard of that narrative; Steinbeck did say “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”. I still find it patronizing; it is reductive. The model assumes a caricature of a poor man who votes for slavery in the hope of owning a slave one day. Maybe, he just doesn't like black people? Maybe, he worries that his precarious job will be lost by new competition? Maybe, Colonel George from the plantation threatened him if he votes for abolition?
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Interesting that not a single one of your proposed counter-options is any nicer than the one you dislike.

Spearchucker 13y ago

Philosophical perspectives on karma notwithstanding, I'm not sure I agree. You can ignore the less fortunate whether you believe in Karma, god or other imaginary friend. Second, at times it should be your obligation to be a jerk to others. Not saying always, but where not doing so puts you into a worse place than you would otherwise be, you should. To explain (followed by an extreme example): consider the most important things you need to accomplish in life (remember also that these will vary depending on what you intend to achieve with your life) - 1. Stay alive. You can't do squat if you're dead. 2. Love unconditionally, but take no crap. 3. And so on. If being an arse to someone keeps you alive then this may give you the opportunity to save your child's life. There are many less-extreme scenarios that are just as valid. Why, for example, does the FAA suggest putting your own oxygen mask on before helping others? PS. Everybody can be successful. Ref. Wallace D. Wattles' vol 1: The Science of Getting Rich

Afforess 13y ago
So Karma is right some of the time is your defense? A broken clock is right two times a day. I still wouldn't advocate replacing your functional clock with a broken one. Similarly, I don't advocate Karma because it's an extremely flawed philosophy.
- Spearchucker 13y ago
  As opposed to... religion? Most of which endorse stoning, slavery and mutilation?
  - Kurtz79 13y ago
    As opposed to common sense.

gadders 13y ago

I would have thought it meant if you were a jerk to someone, then that would generate bad karma.

Ultron 13y ago

I just didn't see how karma fit in to the story. That said, anyone who is a friend of animals is a friend of mine.

nkohari 13y ago

This is a very superficial interpretation of the idea of karma. What you're describing is just someone rationalizing being a judgmental asshole. Karma is about "paying it forward", not in an attempt to gain the favor of the universe, but because it is the morally correct thing to do. If you believe in karma, you believe that the machinations of the universe will reward and punish justly, but you don't participate in the process directly. Individuals don't get to meter out "karmic retribution" to people they perceive to be unworthy.

6d0debc071 13y ago
While I don't think that the author of the piece meant it this way: If I believe in Karma, arguably I believe that the best thing I can do is to fulfil my station in life as I aspire to break the cycle of rebirth. It's definitely worth remembering that Karma existed in a society that did have, and still does in some ways, a very strong caste system where the good of the society was often seen as a consequence of everyone doing their assigned role. Notably, in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the arguments that Krishna uses to convince Arjuna that he should fight against his own family is because it will fulfil his verdic duties - in this instance his station in life as a warrior.

seclorum 13y ago

Karma is not a dialectic, as if there is a synthesis/anti-syntheis position from which to posit the workings of Karmic responses. At the essence of anyone who wishes to live a better life, is responsibility. Karma is a cultural mechanic by which we humans can discuss the phenomenon of responsibility in a manner which, while it may be broken or incomplete, has indeed - by simple stint of communication - resulted in many an individual, family, group of people, improving their lives. A little more consciousness of the responsibility of the individual to interact with the wider universe, is all one can truly hope to 'gain' from a Karmic point of view. Just so its clear, I don't think Karma as you understand it is necessarily complete, or at least you cannot apply the dialectic materialist point of view, if you think you 'get' Karma.. imho, of course.

dschiptsov 13y ago

The more general and, perhaps, more correct notion of karma is dependent causation, which means that everything what we are is caused by our actions - thoughts, deeds, desires (including those in past lives.)) This concept, considered broadly, eliminates any kind of external, super-human forces, including deities and gods. It also opens the path for changes in oneself (a way to enlightenment) due to lack of any other obstacles but ones own mind. Our own actions is only part of the big notion, and of course, according to ancient teachings, "good" and "bad" doesn't exist outside ones mind, there are just actions and the objective reality, which just is.

cko 13y ago

That's a rather dogmatic way of thinking about karma. 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' Anguttara Nikaya 5.57 (translator: Thanissaro Bhikkhu) Lesson to self: practice noble habits and refrain from ignoble ones.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

> the authors stated opinion on Karma is terrifying. Man, people on this site overuse the word "terrifying."

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
"terrifying" "stunning" "I'm not so sure..." "I'm curious," "perhaps" "arguably" "How My Startup ____________ (In Other Words, Something That Is Not At All a How-To Article)"
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I don't really mind things that are said a lot, especially when they express genuine doubt, rather than people playing devil's advocate or intentionally muddying the waters with far-fetched speculation. My problem is the misuse of the word. "Terrifying" is to HN as "slightly concerning" is to real life. I do like your list, though.

rictic 13y ago

This belief is sometimes called the Just World Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis