Criticism of Karma Theory

 Karma is a theory that believes that there is a moral providence in the world. The nature of this providence is to reward good and punish evil actions. But there are four big problems with it:

1. Injustice is a patent fact in the world. On the other hand Karma theory would have us believe that contrary to our everyday life experiences there is complete justice in the world. People get what they deserve. Hence blame the one who suffers. Anyone who is enjoying his riches even though ill won is a good man. How many times do we see that something bad happens to someone who is good and something good happens to morally reprehensible people? The theory of karma is not a theory that arises from the need to explain our everyday life experiences. It is a dogma and forces us to interpret our experience in the light of this dogma. Since it cannot explain why there is injustice and misfortune in the world it posits the concept of rebirth. One proposition is sought to be validated through another unsubstantiated assumption. Clearly we are reasoning in a circle here. What is the use of telling someone that something is true but we can never know that it is true?
2. Karma theory treats an individual like an island isolated from the rest. The choices an individual makes have to be understood in light of his circumstances. An individual may suffer due to factors not within his control. He may suffer due to social evil or because a weak socio-political system is in place. He may suffer due to another’s mistakes. He may suffer due to genetic disorders even despite the attempt to be in good health (This reminds me something. Christopher Reeve famous for his Superman role suffered a major spinal cord injury. Dana Reeve his wife handled the situation with fortitude. Some years after Chris’s death Dana was detected with lung cancer. In a public announcement of her disease she said - I have not smoked a cigarette in my life but yes I have lung cancer). An individual always affects and is affected by his surroundings. He does not exist independently of his circumstances. But Karma theory has it that all the while an individual is suffering due to his own actions.
3. We are not created equal in this world. Some have more ability than another. Some are born poor and receive little education compared to another. How should one explain this inequality? If we invoke the theory of Karma then these differences are due to our actions in a past life. But this only postpones the issue. If we push this question further we would either reach the beginning of the world where there couldn’t have been any differences between one individual and another or and this is the solution adopted that karma is beginning-less. Yet Karma claims to explain the differences between individuals when in reality it explains nothing but only postpones the issue indefinitely. Why pretend to be an answer then?
4. What end does Karma serve? What is the use of punishing someone for deeds they do not even know whether they committed or not. How could such a punishment every reform an individual? What is the point of a punishment when you don’t even know what your mistake is? And how many people have really improved in the world because of these punishments? Has the world become a better place due to it? I can’t see if Karma serves any end at all. It arms the strong to exploit by making the weak to remain exploited. It confirms the fortunate in his insensitivity towards the unfortunate without providing the unfortunate any solace.

Karma isn’t real. Injustice in the world is a patent fact; we see it every day in our lives yet ignore it. And there is no need to believe that the one who is suffering is suffering because of his actions; a person doesn’t necessarily deserve to suffer. Rather such a belief is callous and unfair to another. There are good people in the world who suffer and bad ones who prosper.

Karma as a theory sets out to prove that everything evens out in the world eventually and that injustice in the world is apparent. However it is just a presumption and no one has set out to prove it; it is rather an article of faith. The correct diagnosis of an individual’s suffering can be found in his individual and social environment and no transcendental cause need be invoked. Karma is not put forward as an explanation; it is put forward as a fact albeit a transcendental one.