 Now, we talk about continuing with our conversation about the karmic theory, we would like to talk about what are the loopholes or the criticisms of karmic theory. Now, if you look at the screen, we had talked in the last class, talked earlier about the various questions that comes to the mind when we talk about the karma theory. It is what about free will and what happens to the realized souls, does all actions have a karmic effect, does the law of karma limit the autonomy of God, beginning of the karmic chain, benevolence and compassion towards the suffering would be intervening in the law of karma. Now, I find a very good exposition of critique that is faced by the karma theory in Karl Potter's work. Karl Potter was an eminent Indian philosopher. In his article, how many karma theories are there. So, here Karl Potter talks about many of these criticisms that we covered in the forms of questions. Now, let us first take a look that whether we find Karl Potter points out these very usual criticisms of the karmic theory and let us explore them in detail. Whether this is fatalistic in whether the karma theory promulgates a kind of fatalism or not. Well, let us take a look at this. Now, if we find that whatever action we do brings about its consequences, then the consequences are winding and then these consequences also are preemptors or actions or actions themselves. So, does this get a kind of fatalism? The worry that many people have voiced is that well, karmic theory commits to a kind of fatalism. In fact, on a more crucial note, let us the standard consolation that one has is particularly in the Indian scenario may be more accurately in the rural agrarian scenario that well, if I suffer a misfortune that is the result of my bad karma earlier. Now, this is what Karl Potter points out that this is perhaps one of the foundational criticisms of law of karma that it brings about fatalism. That we see that well, whenever any misfortune happens, it is understood as a result of bad karma. Where is the problem? The problem is that well, we do not need to seek any solution to misfortune and misfortune art is taken as a given, is taken as a result of the past actions. Now, look at this very interesting. If you transpose it to the current Indian scenario, let us take a look at this. Let us imagine this. Most of the Indian ways of working are very little heat or regard to the safety criteria. That is a very empirically verifiable feature. Our motorcyclists do not use helmets, our car drivers do not use seat belts, our industries, flout safety norms, our transportation, name the field, health care, everything, flout safety norms, our constructions, our engineering, flout safety norms. Now, many of them could be understood that well, this is of course, economic reasons, but one lineage or that allows for or that condescends this lack of safety awareness is perhaps reading of the law of karma, because it causes a kind of fatalism. Where accidents are seen not as any intentional event or even by the very term accident, we mean something which was unintentional or which was unplanned for or which just occurred. So, giving responsibility is only in the narrow range of events. So, even calling an accident a collision gives a stronger intentional stance to the event, which was say perhaps an accident between two vehicles. So, the karma theory when it is criticized to be fatalistic is criticized, because this brings about a reduction in responsibility of the agents involved. That if there is an earthquake, well it was my or there bad karma that it happened and that we need not perhaps the next step is that we need not explore why it happened or how it can be prevented. It brings in a kind of fatalism that well, whatever had to happen has happened, nothing more, nothing less. So, this brings in a kind of a fatalism. Now, there are various ways to answer that, now if you want to defend the law of karma you would say that well, yes we do see in fact that there are misfortunes that occur in spite of all the precautions that we take. Titanic did sink, although it was touted as an unsinkable ship, space shuttles do fall off. So, in spite of all our caution there may be something that goes wrong and that is linked to the law of karma. It is also not preventing us from finding the cause of these karma or these misfortunes. Law of karma nowhere tells you that you will not find out the cause of these bad actions and you will not take precautions or you will not take actions to prevent these from happening before. Notice what is binding or what is determined in the law of karma is that a bad action gets a bad result. As a former president survey Palli late survey Palli Rathakrishnan said that well, the law of karma is conservation in the law of moral universe. So, in the moral universe nothing is lost, every action has a reaction. So, every intentional action, every desireful action has a result. So, according to the law of karma when I am answering the charge of fatalism, if I have to defend the law of karma or the defenders of the law of karma have put it that well, in spite of your best efforts there can be events out of your control. That is a result of bad karma, but you are constantly creating new karmic balance. It is like you are running a corporation and you inherit some bad debts, some bad assets. Now, that is what you inherit, but that does not come binding to you that you make bad decisions thereafter. You can turn around the path of the corporation by taking accurate decisions, taking right decisions, accumulating good karma, accumulating good assets, accumulating revenue and that is seen as a almost a funny analogy between a bank account and a the karmic account. So, you have to face what you have done, but that does not bind you that it continues as a cycle. Everything you see where the defect lies when the charge of fatalism is laid upon the karmic theory is that bad actions lead to bad consequences or wicked consequences, but life or actions are not consequences or consequent events. So, this is what where we deny that well, law of karma does not claim fatalism, because it is only saying that well, let me put it in a figurative analogy. Say if x leads to y and y has to lead to z, well this is the problem when we see the law of karma as fatalistic, but when we see the law of karma as its advocates would like you to have is that a bad action leads to a bad consequence. But what happens here will have its own consequences. So, this may have consequences as b and this may have consequences as c. So, this is what is according to the karmic theory this is wrong and this is right that it is in this moment that we have free choice and this free choice determines the results that we get. Now, we talk about the second critique that has been very often faced by the karmic theory is that it is a retributive ethical theory. Now, what is meant by retributive ethical theory? Now, when we talk about the law of karma and we have had theories of punishment and one of the theories of punishment is that well if something wrong has been done to avenge that wrong one has to do another similar act for example, an eye for an eye or a punishment that causes the same if not more harm than what the action caused. So, this is retribution in a way taking revenge. Now, what is karmic theory doing when it says that well it is retributive karmic theory would mean that every action is being revenge every action has an impersonal principle taking revenge. So, if I do something good I get something good and if I do something bad I get something bad. So, this is a kind of a very retributive theory that well what is missing here well what is missing here as in other religious ethics we would talk about is the notion of what about grace, forgiveness, compassion etcetera. Now, the critiques of karma theory would be saying that well this is simply a vindictive theory that well here I give you something good and there you get something good and you do something bad and you get something bad in return, but is it not this there is something wrong with it as an ethical theory that where is the whole concept of retribution. So, when even in the Indian tradition this is a problem with the karmic theory because strongly theistic schools of Vedanta or other theistic schools have argued for the forgiveness received from God or of the of being ameliorated of your sins. Now, let me look at let me put it in a very non-religious way if I do something wrong and I genuinely repent it I wish I would not have done it right I still face the consequence that comes from it if the law of karma holds. On the other hand see you have done something equally wicked and you have enjoyed it and you do not have any regret or repentance about it where you also face the consequence of the action. So, let us putting it simplistically action 1 action 2 action 1 has regret action 2 has no regret consequence continues to be the same if a 1 is similar to a 2. So, regret is not shown in the equation that well there is simply no regret that or I know sorry forgive me not simply no regret, but that regret does not have any moral value in the moral calculus feeling of repentance or regret seems to be irrelevant. Now, that is where perhaps in ethical theory is not capturing the whole plethora of human conduct. Now, if you are defender of the karmic theory you would say that well yes you are right that well an action and evil done or a good deed done will get its consequences even if you repent or do not repent or if you are proud of it or you are not proud of it yes guilty to that charge, but for somebody who repents definitely their actions would be revised and better thereof. So, the 1 who is a habitual offender or repeated offender is the 1 who does not have the regret repentance factor in the in working whereas the 1 who is having regret and repentance it does not as 1 could say become a vassna does not become a sanskar does not become a quality or a property or a tendency it does not become a tendency of the agent to repeat these wrong doings, but again look at it this way that the agent no matter how good he be or she be if he or she has committed something right or wrong is bound to get the reward or punishment for the same that there is no way of amelioration it has to be a zero sum game. Now, theistic schools in fact will come to the criticism of the theory of karma which has even called the theory of karma as impersonal and naturalistic that is the last point that we would be tackling, but look at it this way. Now, the very fact that it makes the moral calculus so perfect that left hand side and the right hand side are to be balanced that it does not matter whether 1 has a sense of repentance or regret in fact there is no intervention possible that no matter how much of a forgiveness I seek even from divinity it does not work we will talk about this in the next point coming about. So, when we talk about retributive ethical theory we see that well law of karma tends to be a retributive theory it is taking revenge, but the advocates of karma theory would say that well it is not taking revenge it is just giving you the fruit of your actions, but it is nowhere influencing you to repeat certain these kinds of actions or it is not discounting the sense of regret that is setting about another chain of events. Secondly, human predicament is always a battle between good and bad or the battle between desire and duty and this is what characterizes human predicament the law of karma is being cold to this human predicament it is seeing once it is not valuing the temptation the urge the desires that a human being goes through and sometimes succumbs to it sometimes overpowers it. So, it expects perhaps as the critics would say too much out of human beings it makes it a cold calculative principle. Now, coming to the third criticism that has been laid against the law of karma as put out by Karl Potter is that it is unduly egoistic well what do you mean by unduly egoistic it is said to be unduly and I quote Karl Potter it is said to be unduly egoistic because it gives too much responsibility to people to force men to turn inwards and predicate their lives on a selfish desire for their own improvement and eventual release with no attention to their fellow man true charity real love for others becoming irrelevant. What is meant by this well when I say that the law of karma is unduly egoistic is that well look at it this way why does one do a good action or why does one perform a morally qualified action good or bad or a morally qualifiable action well according to the law of karma it could be because you expect something out of it that well you do good you accumulate credit again going back to the bank analogy that well you are doing good for no no no reason other than for accumulating it for yourself. So, this is kind of making it shrewd cunning and exceedingly selfish now when the agent performs an action with anticipation that this action will give him or her will accumulate more desert for him or her give until him or her for a for liberation or self improvement or better advantages in this or coming life well something in the moral equation or calculus is missing and that is missing is the sense of true charity true charity or selflessness that well where are actions that do not that do not have a selfless intent that well initial part of the moral domain or the value domain has been that well good has been done for its own sake not for something else in this case it is purely teleological it is not the ontological at all it is teleological because it gets you advantages later. So, therefore it is your own advantages. So, the law of karma can be seen as purely purposive or teleological teontological at all now the fourth issue that we that is characterized by in the article of Carl Potter is that the law of karma is said to be unrealistic well why is it said to be unrealistic again I quote from Carl Potter it says quote leaving aside the point that it is unverifiable the theory can only hope to explain events by invoking God or fate since a simple connecting of actions with results cannot possibly succeed given the complexity of nature especially human nature. Now, what is meant by unrealistic well the law of karma says that well when we have an action we have a result simple as that what is unrealistic about this is that in this entire domain gamut of human actions which is so complicated having such a simple action to action connect is first unverifiable and second it is if it will have to sneak in through the back door and assumption of a God or a higher agency to perhaps connect these actions. Now, let us look at it this way in fact many of us can draw very interesting tributaries interesting lines of thinking that how this law of karma as a theory has influenced the Indian or the civilizations wherever it is widely believed in well when every action has to have its own results it rules away selfless actions it rules away selfless actions for actions done without any benefit actions done for its own self. So, every event or every action has to be incentivized now that is one reading that one can make out of the law of karma it is unrealistic in the sense that well it could be Marxist sociological reading of the law of karma could be that it is to implant a fear of deserts to prevent evil actions and to reward good actions and therefore to make society more stable because in principle it is unverifiable. So, even when we see that in this life people are doing good and suffering and doing evil and prospering it is rationalized that in some other life they have done something to reserve this and their actions in the current life will entail better actions in the future. So, apart from the fact it is unverifiable it could be a very scheming sociological religious psychological phenomena or a construct to preserve social order it is unrealistic in the sense that how to we connect and how actions are to be how intentions actually transport them how is the law of karma or what is the means of execution how is our intention factored into this equation and then let us come to the final view or final line of criticism that is faced by the law of karma is that it is naturalistic because considering just now as when we talked about in the fourth point that unrealistic that we need to assume a God or an entity to connect the law of karma does not make any such assumptions it is supposed to be a cold impersonal principle it leaves no scope for God or any higher agencies it is naturalistic. So, it follows almost a naturalistic order now what is it that we are meaning when we call something naturalistic when we call something naturalistic we mean that well it exists in the state of nature and nature follows laws and therefore there are natural just as there are natural laws that laws such as gravitation. So, there are laws such as karma so that is almost making it a fact of human existence perhaps naturally perceivable fact of human existence. Now, when we talk about it as a cold impersonal principle we are saying that well there is no role that the notion that God or the notion of God plays in this law of karma. So, when we talk about the theistics when we seek grace when we seek forgiveness when we seek that well amelioration when we seek blessings to cancel out our evil cancel out our wicked deeds it is blank to that that well that is simply not possible it is something like a loan that has been taken and it has to be paid to a defender of the law of karma would say that well yes by doing more actions you can perhaps neutralize it unless until it is become prior of the karma. Now, there is a long sequence of events which we will talk about which we have already talked about and may be focus a little bit in the coming time is that how actually an event becomes a karmic event that what becomes a prior of the action what becomes an action that you have to that yields result necessarily. So, considering that well according to the law of karma well it is an impersonal cold naturalistic principle there is no forgiveness there is no negotiation. In fact, if I may provide a rather funny analogy is that when you deal with a government department or the judiciary you expected to go by the rules and you go by the rules and if you are having a punishment and say if there is a sufficiently corrupt judiciary and you are part of the accused or you are on the team of the accused you would like to step outside and say well my dear judge I offer you something and please lessen my sentence or let me off and you try to negotiate you try to negotiate we try to negotiate every time in life that we see that well we deserve this according to the rules and we do not deserve this according to rules and the rule enforcer ought to do this but in that equation we step beside that and do a little bit of negotiation that well we require this let us get this now to the defender of the law of karma if there is a God's ability to forgive evil acts it is this kind of a negotiation it is unfair that a deed is left unrewarded or unpunished that the deed does not yield its results how is this isn't this unfair so to the defender of the karmic theory it is very fair that this is that the karmic principle is cold and impersonal and to the critic of the karmic theory it is making the ethical domain completely naturalistic and taking away the power of discretion or a power of forgiveness of any religious entity so claimed.