Does Karma Exist

[Willamena]

It doesn't. We can still adopt useful definitions of the concept, though.

As I have, yes.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No. For many reasons, and one major reason is the lack of a universal code of ethics engraved in reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I have, yes.

You really think so? Good luck to you then. You will need it.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. For many reasons, and one major reason is the lack of a universal code of ethics engraved in reality.

Why would Karma need a code of ethics?

 

[Quagmire]

Why is this relevant to anything I said?

You said:

Behaving virtuously is behaving in accord with your beliefs. That you have beliefs at all, I guess, would be the "standard" (if you insist that there be one).

I have no doubt that Adolf Hitler, being human, engaged in virtuous behavior. We all do to some extent.

.

I said:

He certainly sounded like he believed what he was saying.

My point being that from Hitler's perspective he was behaving virtuously.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why would Karma need a code of ethics?

Bad actions result in bad consequences, good actions result in good consequences. It suggests that there are bad and good things.

 

[YmirGF]

Fair enough; but I don't think bringing free will into the picture improves virtue any.

Are you saying that as long as a person is acting in accordance to their beliefs then they are being virtuous? I don't often find myself at loggerheads with you and so am genuinely interested in understanding your position.

 

[LuisDantas]

Bad actions result in bad consequences, good actions result in good consequences. It suggests that there are bad and good things.

Karma does not need to tell one group from the other.

 

[Willamena]

My point being that from Hitler's perspective he was behaving virtuously.

As a human being, it's impossible for him not to have at times behaved virtuously. It's not really relevant...

 

[Willamena]

Are you saying that as long as a person is acting in accordance to their beliefs then they are being virtuous? I don't often find myself at loggerheads with you and so am genuinely interested in understanding your position.

Yes, that's what I said, a number of times now. I recognize virtue is also commonly used to refer to a moral high standard, which is why I specified how I'm using the word.

 

[Thruve]

I don't see how Karma could ever have an intent, or perceive intent. You would have to conceive it as a sentient being or force of some sort for that to be possible.

Besides, there is also the matter of whether intent should be taken in consideration above actual effects and consequences. That is a very questionable and IMO inadvisable premise to take.

Let me clarify what im saying good sir by using an example. Two mothers with families both steal fire wood from a church. Now, lets say mother A stole the fire wood because she is poor, single, has little resources, and yet needs to provide warmth for her family. Mother B on the other hand steals the fire wood not because shes poor or is unresourceful, but because shes too lazy to drive/walk a mile to town to obtain it, or shes careless.

No one would agree that the motive/intent is the same, other than.. to provide warmth. But as you can see even intent in ones actions plays a role on it effects the world and those in it.

Therefore, I 'believe' that motives/intent should be taken into consideration. The effects Mother A would cause could be on her own children/those around her, which could subjectively in my opinion be strength and hospitality, perhaps gratefulness if I was to throw in that Mother A threw a prayer afterward.

I also 'believe' that Karma would be a force (If you believe it exists) simply because Im under the impression that energy has no limitations. Everything that appears ironic in our lives in my opinion is driven by a force, whether we believe it to be by an intellectual one or not. Forces, on the other hand though, atleast in my opinion, don't have to be driven by an intellectual force, simply look at 'balance'. Does an intellectual force drive that? Or can we simply call it a 'force' of nature?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, that's what I said, a number of times now. I recognize virtue is also commonly used to refer to a moral high standard, which is why I specified how I'm using the word.

I suppose what bothers me with the notion is in the implications. This definition could be used to justify virtually any form of behavior.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me clarify what im saying good sir by using an example. Two mothers with families both steal fire wood from a church. Now, lets say mother A stole the fire wood because she is poor, single, has little resources, and yet needs to provide warmth for her family. Mother B on the other hand steals the fire wood not because shes poor or is unresourceful, but because shes too lazy to drive/walk a mile to town to obtain it, or shes careless.

No one would agree that the motive/intent is the same, other than.. to provide warmth. But as you can see even intent in ones actions plays a role on it effects the world and those in it.

That seems to me to be a difference in possibilities and choices, not in intent.

Therefore, I 'believe' that motives/intent should be taken into consideration. The effects Mother A would cause could be on her own children/those around her, which could subjectively in my opinion be strength and hospitality, perhaps gratefulness if I was to throw in that Mother A threw a prayer afterward.

I'm not following.

I also 'believe' that Karma would be a force (If you believe it exists) simply because Im under the impression that energy has no limitations.

Karma isn't a force, at least by my understanding. It is better described as a name for a flow of causes and consequences.

Everything that appears ironic in our lives in my opinion is driven by a force, whether we believe it to be by an intellectual one or not. Forces, on the other hand though, at least in my opinion, don't have to be driven by an intellectual force, simply look at 'balance'. Does an intellectual force drive that? Or can we simply call it a 'force' of nature?

I guess I'm just not seeing those forces you speak of.

 

[YmirGF]

Let me clarify what im saying good sir by using an example. Two mothers with families both steal fire wood from a church. Now, lets say mother A stole the fire wood because she is poor, single, has little resources, and yet needs to provide warmth for her family. Mother B on the other hand steals the fire wood not because shes poor or is resourcefulness, but because shes too lazy to drive/walk a mile to town to obtain it, or shes careless.

No one would agree that the motive/intent is the same, other than.. to provide warmth. But as you can see even intent in ones actions plays a role on it effects the world and those in it.

Therefore, I 'believe' that motives/intent should be taken into consideration. The effects Mother A would cause could be on her own children/those around her, which could subjectively in my opinion be strength and hospitality, perhaps gratefulness if I was to throw in that Mother A threw a prayer afterward.

In my view, both are equally guilty of theft. Their reasons differ but both chose to steal. It is laughable that Mother A would feel her primitive prayer would take care of her act. "Oh, lord, thanks for letting me steal this wood from your unsuspecting followers. It's for the children, you know." (Heaven forbid either simply went to the door and asked for help.)

I also 'believe' that Karma would be a force (If you believe it exists) simply because Im under the impression that energy has no limitations. Everything that appears ironic in our lives in my opinion is driven by a force, whether we believe it to be by an intellectual one or not. Forces, on the other hand though, at least in my opinion, don't have to be driven by an intellectual force, simply look at 'balance'. Does an intellectual force drive that? Or can we simply call it a 'force' of nature?

I'm still looking for any latent meaning in this word salad.

 

[Thruve]

That seems to me to be a difference in possibilities and choices, not in intent.

The intent in the example is visible good sir, im not sure how or why you'd perceive that as a difference between possibilities-choices lol Please can you elaborate..

 

[YmirGF]

The intent in the example is visible good sir, im not sure how or why you'd perceive that as a difference between possibilities-choices lol Please can you elaborate..

Respectfully, Thruve, it was a pretty inane example.

 

[LuisDantas]

mother A stole the fire wood because she is poor, single, has little resources, and yet needs to provide warmth for her family. Mother B on the other hand steals the fire wood not because shes poor or is unresourceful, but because shes too lazy to drive/walk a mile to town to obtain it, or shes careless.

Does that look like a contrast of intents to you?

 

[YmirGF]

Does that look like a contrast of intents to you?

Nope. The intent of both was to procure firewood.

 

[LuisDantas]

If anything, it is an example of different circunstances and available options creating different moral possibilities.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose what bothers me with the notion is in the implications. This definition could be used to justify virtually any form of behavior.

It's not a justification at all.