You are on page 1of 6

York University

First Paper Essay

Trung Ngo
Student No: 829156353

PHIL 3095: Philosophy of Religion


Course Director: Professor Gerard Naddaf

Topic # 3:
In light of the Kaufmans five objections to the rebirth doctrine in his essay Karma, Rebirth and
the Problem of Evil, develop a doctrine of karma that you would argue
could satisfy the authors objections.

Feb 24, 2015


Mans religion is the expression of his ultimate attitude to the universe (Caird E.), and
the explanation for the existence and causation of evil and human sufferings are at the core of all

religious doctrines. Indian religious traditions offer the concept of karma and rebirth as answer
to human sufferings and as the basis for moral education. Kaufman has several objections to
karma for its inadequacy in elucidating the sources of evil and the causality of moral actions
(Kaufman, 2005). In this paper, I will argue that the Buddhists philosophy of causality, also
known as doctrine of dependent-origination, provides a solid foundation for combining the
concepts of karma, impermanence, human sufferings and no-self into an integrated and
comprehensive doctrine. Although it is unlikely that any religion can perfectly explain and
eradicate all sources of evil, perhaps Buddhisms version of karma could provide meaningful
guidance in moral education, as evidenced by its help to countless number of people across
diverse cultures in dealing with their personal sufferings over the last 2,500 years.
Despite its many achievements and superior intellectual capacity, humans have always
been exposed to devastating natural events and are often befuddled by their personal misfortunes,
neither of which could be explained or avoided. This sense of helplessness fuels the need for
philosophical concepts and religious beliefs which would appeal to reason and temper the quest
for understanding the unknown. Indian traditions offer an ontology predicated on the notions of
karma and rebirth or reincarnation as explanation for causes of events in this life.
Kaufman objects to the concept karma and rebirth in relation to its lack of verification,
unbalanced relationship between cause and effect and the deterministic and circularity nature of
this belief. He concluded that the doctrine of karma and rebirth, taken as a systematic notional
account of human suffering is unsuccessful as a theodicy (Kaufman, 2005).
Kaufmans five objections are: (1) Given the lack of recollection of actions from previous lives
and the random and arbitrary nature of events in this life, karma cannot serves as the basis for
moral education. (2) Retributions in this life for past actions are not perceived to be proportional
2

to the severity of past misdeeds. (3) There is no beginning to the karma process, it is in infinite
regress. (4) Life cannot be considered as problem of evil but a failure to solve it with karma. (5)
Being deterministic and mechanical, karma is against free will. Finally, because karma and
rebirth cannot be verified, this concept could lead to fatalism and justification for repression.
Kaufmans argument is structured as follows:
(1) Human sufferings are evil.
(2) Humans want a good life with minimum suffering.
(3) An effective moral doctrine should explain sufferings and provide mean of its
avoidance.
(4) Karma and rebirth concept cannot fully explain the relationship between actions and
sufferings in the life.
(5) Therefore karma is an ineffectual moral doctrine.
According to Kaufman, if karma is considered as a form of divine justice then it should be
similar with human justice in terms of transparency and fairness. He reckons that karma fails in
both counts; therefore it is not viable as guidance for moral conduct.
Buddhism incorporates the karma and rebirth concept into its broader doctrine of
dependent origination (paticca-samuppda) which stipulates the conditioned arising and
extinguishing of all physical and mental phenomena (Rahula, 1974). This interdependence of all
phenomena, including human sufferings for their beginning and ending, follows a universal law
of causality which cannot be escaped. Having recognized this natural human condition, Buddha
offered a way to diminish suffering through the rebirth cycle. The main argument in support of
Buddhists causality doctrine is as follows (Gowans, 2003):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Law of causality governs all physical and mental phenomena.


All phenomena are either causes or effects of good and bad karma.
Mental phenomena like grasping and desires are sources of human sufferings.
Avoiding desire (cause) is a mean to diminish suffering (effect).
Rebirth is an outcome of causality from past karma.
Humans can transform their karma through moral actions.
3

(7) Reincarnation as humans provides the opportunity for karma transformation.


So Buddhist philosophy provides possible replies to Kaufmans objections as contained in
Premises (3) and (4) of his argument. It identifies the source of human sufferings and offers an
antidote which humans can use in order to eradicate sufferings over time through the Four Noble
Truths doctrine (Gowans, 2003). Since karma is created at every moment even in thought, it
would not be possible to offset all karma from previous lives in this life; therefore rebirth is both
an unavoidable outcome and an opportunity for redemption.
Forest fire could be used as an example for this concept: to put out a large forest fire one
needs first to contain it, then identify the source of the fire, remove all sources of combustion and
let it burns until all it extinguishes itself which could take weeks or longer. We can think of the
karma process in the same way, it is man made and could only be terminated if we recognize its
origin. Karma is neither arbitrary nor automatic, and is entirely within our ability to control and
modify. Similarly if karma is thought of as previous debt, then if one wishes to pay off the debt
one should stop borrowing more and be very disciplined in paying it off over time. The
Buddhists causality doctrine is not against free will; in fact it puts us as the main and only actors
in control of the process.
An objection to the Buddhists causality doctrine is that one can relate to actions (karma)
from this life but since there is no proof or recollection of actions from previous lives one cannot
be held responsible for them. The requirement for evidence of rebirth and past karma can only be
responded by referring to the universal law of causality: birth naturally follows death and all past
karma cannot be expected to go away unless they are offset by new one since nothing can selfextinguish or self-arise according to the dependent-origination principle. Further, Buddhist
philosophy denies the existence of the self by equating it with the five aggregates: sensations,

feelings, perceptions, volitions and consciousness which are ever changing, so rebirth provides
the continuity to this process (Kasulis, 1997). The Buddhists causality doctrine should be
interpreted within the broader context of the circularity view about life, the impermanence of all
phenomena and the requirement as human beings for continuous effort to change and improve
the course of karma formation. Karma should not be interpreted as a mechanistic process but
rather as an opportunity for self-improvement.
To conclude if it is unrealistic to think that through reason we can somehow uncover all
the mysteries of human life and eradicate evil, it might be more beneficial to accept the Buddhist
causality principle and its call for self-transformation as guide for moral conduct and achieve
happiness in this life. And if reincarnation is inevitable, one can only put effort in generating
enough good karma with the hope that one will be reborn in the next life as human rather than
other living species.

References
Gowans C.W, Philosophy of the Buddha, Routledge (2003).
Johnson R., Karma, Rebirth and Evil (1953), in Reason and Religions, editor Cahn S.M,
p. 144-146.
Kasulis T.P, The Buddhist Concept of Self (1997), in Reason and Religions, editor Cahn S.M,
p. 333-337.
Kaufman W.R, Karma, Rebirth and the Problem of Evil (2005), in Reason and Religions,
editor Cahn S.M, p. 147-155.
Rahula W., What the Buddha taught (1974), in Reason and Religions, editor Cahn S.M,

p. 347-353.

You might also like