Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 4:07:17 GMT
Chapter 4 - Karma
Job's friends finally have the courage to speak and they end up hinting that Job must have done something wicked to deserve this - because their understanding of justice doesn't permit God to do something like this to the righteous. They assume that the idea that God curses the righteous would create a reality where mortals are superior to God. "Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can even a strong man be more pure than his Maker?" According to their religious axiom that God is perfect, Job must be the imperfect one. If Job is to maintain his innocence, it calls into question the perfection of God - a sin of blasphemy.
*Karma*
Karma, generally speaking, is the idea that good deeds bring blessings (good fortune) and bad deeds bring curses (bad luck). Often karma is spread over multiple lifetimes in reincarnation-based religions - where good deeds in the first life are rewarded in the second life, and punishments likewise transcend lifetimes. But as shown in the ideology of Job's friends, in primitive Jewish thought, karma was supposed to happen in the same lifetime. This idea of same-lifetime karma is shown by Job's friends to be a toxic idea because it implies that the unfortunate deserve their circumstances. Not only do the unfortunate suffer from their circumstances, but they also suffer socially due to people imputing blame unto them.
*Karma Scripture*
Same-lifetime karma is both supported and rejected by Biblical scripture. Jesus addressed it in saying "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." When people asked Jesus why someone was born with a disability, he proclaimed that blindness and deafness are not punishments for sins, but rather opportunities for God. But despite Jesus trying to undo the toxic narrative of same-lifetime karma, this noxious logic is still littered throughout scripture. The world is wicked, therefore God issues a genocidal flood. Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked, therefore destroyed by fire. Israel is righteous, therefore their efforts in war are successful. The idea that you reap what you sow is woven through the fabric of so many stories in scripture, that it is very hard for a believer to not fall into that pattern of thinking, despite Jesus's admonition to the contrary.
*Karma Morality*
In general, the idea of karma is quite useful - which is perhaps why many cultures evolved this ethos. Karma is almost like the metaphysical abstraction of a "tit for tat" morality. It not only implies, "you do bad, you receive bad", but also "you do good, you receive good". Rather than abstracting karma to just the social sphere, karma gets abstracted out to the structure of the cosmos. God or divine nature functions as the ultimate arbiter of karmic justice.
*Tit for Tat Morality*
Tit for tat morality is based on a pattern of behavior that mimics the individuals of the same species (conspecifics) that you interact with. It starts with a default behavior pattern of generous reciprocity, expecting others to return the favor. If a conspecific benefits from your behavior and returns the favor by sending benefits your way, the cycle of reciprocity continues. If the conspecific does not return the favor, then the cycle of cooperative behavior stops. If the conspecific does not harm you, then you don't harm them. If they do harm you, then you harm them in a similar way to ensure that they incur evolutionary costs for their abusive strategy.
*Tit for Tat in Game Theory*
In a variety of computer program simulated experiments, tit for tat morality has consistently performed well as a reliable strategy in simulated social environments [5]. While tit for tat might not be perfect, it can sometimes be improved by adding a programmatic element of "forgiveness" to the strategy to remedy lost cooperation due to miscommunications that turn into negative feedback loops under normal tit for tat. Chris Bateman summarized the most robust version of tit for tat morality containing 1) niceness - never be the first to betray others, 2) vengeance - punish those who betray you, 3) forgiveness - don't continue negative feedback loops indefinitely, and 4) non-envious - don't try to compete with others [6].
*Tit for Tat in Symbiotic Relationships*
Morality resembling tit for tat strategies seems to be found in the animal kingdom. Symbiotic relationships between species can be evidence of an existential tit for tat agreement of - "you do something good for me, I do something good for you". Certain species of fish will develop symbiotic relationships with each other, where the smaller fish will clean the larger fish by consuming the parasites on its body, and the larger fish will provide the cleaner fish with protection from predators. Crocodiles have a tit for tat relationship with birds who clean their teeth (getting the benefit of nutrients) and the crocodile doesn't harm them because he is getting the benefit of healthy teeth. Even bacteria have been found to engage in relationships reminiscent of a tit for tat morality when one bacteria provides nutrients to the host and the other creature provides shelter.
*Tit for Tat in Social Animals*
Certain types of birds will protect the nests of their neighbors. Other birds will give off loud warning signals to protect others at the cost of allowing the predator to hear them. Vampire bats will share blood with other bats. Chimpanzees benefit each other with grooming activities. More robustly, experiments on chimpanzees have tested the extent to which their tit for tat morality is conscious and adaptable or unconscious and purely instinctual. In Engelmann's experiments, he equipped two chimpanzees with a contraption that has two options - low quality food for yourself (selfish), high quality food for the other chimp (benevolent). There was a possibility for the receiving chimp to share some of the high quality food with the chimp who sent it his way. Over iterations of tests, they found that chimps would often trust each other to share the high quality food. If a receiving chimpanzee did not share the food, the betrayal of trust would be remembered and on the next round, the chimp less likely to be generous towards the conspecific who had done him dirty in the prior round. Trust was measured by probability of sending high quality food to the chimp partner. Over all, trust increased over time between chimps who shared with each other, and trust decreased over time between chimps who had a history of betrayal [7].
*Religion Supports the Nice Element of Tit for Tat*
The nice element of a tit for tat ethic is to always initiate with altruistic behavior towards others. The golden rule is the religious expression of this nice element - how we should treat others the way we want to be treated, which would mean we should assume that others are like us and deserve altruistic treatment by default. This golden rule is expressed in many religions, almost to the point of becoming a human universal.
*The Golden Rule*
Hinduism: "Everything you should do you will find in this: Do nothing unto others that would hurt you if it were done unto you" (Mahabharata 5:1517). Buddhism: "Do not offend others as you would not want to be offended" (Udana-Varga 5:18). Taoism: "The successes of your neighbor and their losses will be to you as if they were your own" (T'ai-shang Kan-ying P'ien). Confucianism: "Is there any rule that one should follow all of one's life? Yes! The rule of the gentle goodness: That which we do not wish to be done unto us, we do not do unto others" (Analects 15:23). Judaism: "That which you do not wish for yourself, you shall not wish for your neighbor. This is the whole law: the rest is only commentary" (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Christianity: "In everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you. For this sums up the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Islam: "None of you shall be true believers unless you wish for your brother the same that you wish for yourself" (Hadith 13).
*Religion Undoes the Revenge Element of Tit for Tat*
The tit for tat ethic assumes a personal responsibility to ensure justice in your local relationships. If you are betrayed, you will punish the betrayer. If you are rewarded, you will reward your benefactor. Religion turns this logic upside-down by convincing the believer that "tit for tat" justice is woven into the metaphysical fabric of the universe - either by karmic forces or by God's omnipotence. By shifting the tit for tat ethic to the universe, it removes personal responsibility for ensuring justice. This could have both beneficial and detrimental effects.
*Detriments of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
But it can be socially detrimental in that it can make believers apathetic about the principle of justice and their social responsibility to maintain it since justice during this life might not be important since a superior cosmic justice is waiting for us. It can be personally detrimental when you choose to endure abuses in hopes of an eternal reward. It can be detrimental to the course of evolution if no one punishes sub-groups that evolve an abusive ethic.
*Benefits of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
It could be psychologically beneficial, in that it comforts the distressed mind about the unfairness of crime and abuse - the universe will satisfy the psychological need for tit for tat justice. It can be survivalistically beneficial, in that your survival is more likely when you abstain from attempting to get revenge personally. It could be socially beneficial, in that it demotivates personal attempts at revenge which can create dangerous negative feedback loops (blood feuds between clans). It could be beneficial towards classes of people who lack social power, in that it allows your group to survive in a hostile environment by enduring abuses rather than offending those in power with feeble attempts at retribution (Nietzschean slave morality).
*Nietzschean Slave Morality*
Nietzsche posited that morality was essentially a class-based phenomenon where the powerful and the powerless adopted different virtues to match the needs of their different roles. The "masters" were the rich, powerful elites who embraces their successes as virtuous. The "slaves" were the poor, powerless servants who resented the upper class as evil. Based on these two perspectives, different moral codes would result. The rich would embrace gluttony, sensuality, dominion, and competence as signs of virtue. The poor would vilify the virtues of the rich, and converting their own status quo into virtues. If the poor lacked food, then fasting was virtuous. If the poor lacked women, then chastity and celibacy were virtuous. If the poor lacked status, then humility was virtuous. If the poor lacked power, then meekness was virtuous. By embracing virtues like humility and meekness, the slaves were more likely to survive in the face of their oppressors. The villainization of the attributes of the masters would eventually unite the minds of the population against the abusers - making it a powerful long-term revolutionary tactic. Instead of taking tit for tat physical revenge against the oppressors, they take revenge on their ideas.
*Game Theory of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
There might be a game theoretical advantage to this submissive ethic in that - abusive people might be able to get away with abusing a series of people, but one day they will abuse the wrong person and become eliminated by retribution. If individuals take revenge into their own hands, they suffer a risk of getting damaged in the process. By following a submissive ethic, as long as there are others in the population without a submissive ethic, someone else can absorb the risk of taking revenge on your behalf. This would increase the survival rate of the submissive ethic while not necessarily allowing an abusive ethic to pervade.
*Judgemental Karma*
The toxic aspect of karma is when it is used by people to infer conclusions about an individual's character by backing into their character from what they observe an individual receiving from the universe. If Job receives bad things, then Job must have been bad in order to trigger this karma. Unfortunately this is still a temptation for Christians despite their access to Jesus's doctrine. Conversely, theists can be tempted to assume that non-theists or ex-theists are deserving of bad luck or curses because of karmic logic. With confirmation bias at hand, theists can ignore years of good luck, and the moment the perceived "sinner" has a year of bad luck, the theist now have evidence that their metaphysical superstitions were correct. This toxic perspective that "sinners" deserve their suffering leads to apathy about improving wellbeing for all. There is an argument that creating social structures that maximizing wellbeing subtract from God's ability to enact karmic justice in the world. By maintaining the possibility for suffering in the lower classes of society, a pocket of reality is maintained for allocation to the "sinners".
NEXT: Chapter 5 - God is a disciplinary father
Job's friends finally have the courage to speak and they end up hinting that Job must have done something wicked to deserve this - because their understanding of justice doesn't permit God to do something like this to the righteous. They assume that the idea that God curses the righteous would create a reality where mortals are superior to God. "Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can even a strong man be more pure than his Maker?" According to their religious axiom that God is perfect, Job must be the imperfect one. If Job is to maintain his innocence, it calls into question the perfection of God - a sin of blasphemy.
*Karma*
Karma, generally speaking, is the idea that good deeds bring blessings (good fortune) and bad deeds bring curses (bad luck). Often karma is spread over multiple lifetimes in reincarnation-based religions - where good deeds in the first life are rewarded in the second life, and punishments likewise transcend lifetimes. But as shown in the ideology of Job's friends, in primitive Jewish thought, karma was supposed to happen in the same lifetime. This idea of same-lifetime karma is shown by Job's friends to be a toxic idea because it implies that the unfortunate deserve their circumstances. Not only do the unfortunate suffer from their circumstances, but they also suffer socially due to people imputing blame unto them.
*Karma Scripture*
Same-lifetime karma is both supported and rejected by Biblical scripture. Jesus addressed it in saying "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." When people asked Jesus why someone was born with a disability, he proclaimed that blindness and deafness are not punishments for sins, but rather opportunities for God. But despite Jesus trying to undo the toxic narrative of same-lifetime karma, this noxious logic is still littered throughout scripture. The world is wicked, therefore God issues a genocidal flood. Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked, therefore destroyed by fire. Israel is righteous, therefore their efforts in war are successful. The idea that you reap what you sow is woven through the fabric of so many stories in scripture, that it is very hard for a believer to not fall into that pattern of thinking, despite Jesus's admonition to the contrary.
*Karma Morality*
In general, the idea of karma is quite useful - which is perhaps why many cultures evolved this ethos. Karma is almost like the metaphysical abstraction of a "tit for tat" morality. It not only implies, "you do bad, you receive bad", but also "you do good, you receive good". Rather than abstracting karma to just the social sphere, karma gets abstracted out to the structure of the cosmos. God or divine nature functions as the ultimate arbiter of karmic justice.
*Tit for Tat Morality*
Tit for tat morality is based on a pattern of behavior that mimics the individuals of the same species (conspecifics) that you interact with. It starts with a default behavior pattern of generous reciprocity, expecting others to return the favor. If a conspecific benefits from your behavior and returns the favor by sending benefits your way, the cycle of reciprocity continues. If the conspecific does not return the favor, then the cycle of cooperative behavior stops. If the conspecific does not harm you, then you don't harm them. If they do harm you, then you harm them in a similar way to ensure that they incur evolutionary costs for their abusive strategy.
*Tit for Tat in Game Theory*
In a variety of computer program simulated experiments, tit for tat morality has consistently performed well as a reliable strategy in simulated social environments [5]. While tit for tat might not be perfect, it can sometimes be improved by adding a programmatic element of "forgiveness" to the strategy to remedy lost cooperation due to miscommunications that turn into negative feedback loops under normal tit for tat. Chris Bateman summarized the most robust version of tit for tat morality containing 1) niceness - never be the first to betray others, 2) vengeance - punish those who betray you, 3) forgiveness - don't continue negative feedback loops indefinitely, and 4) non-envious - don't try to compete with others [6].
*Tit for Tat in Symbiotic Relationships*
Morality resembling tit for tat strategies seems to be found in the animal kingdom. Symbiotic relationships between species can be evidence of an existential tit for tat agreement of - "you do something good for me, I do something good for you". Certain species of fish will develop symbiotic relationships with each other, where the smaller fish will clean the larger fish by consuming the parasites on its body, and the larger fish will provide the cleaner fish with protection from predators. Crocodiles have a tit for tat relationship with birds who clean their teeth (getting the benefit of nutrients) and the crocodile doesn't harm them because he is getting the benefit of healthy teeth. Even bacteria have been found to engage in relationships reminiscent of a tit for tat morality when one bacteria provides nutrients to the host and the other creature provides shelter.
*Tit for Tat in Social Animals*
Certain types of birds will protect the nests of their neighbors. Other birds will give off loud warning signals to protect others at the cost of allowing the predator to hear them. Vampire bats will share blood with other bats. Chimpanzees benefit each other with grooming activities. More robustly, experiments on chimpanzees have tested the extent to which their tit for tat morality is conscious and adaptable or unconscious and purely instinctual. In Engelmann's experiments, he equipped two chimpanzees with a contraption that has two options - low quality food for yourself (selfish), high quality food for the other chimp (benevolent). There was a possibility for the receiving chimp to share some of the high quality food with the chimp who sent it his way. Over iterations of tests, they found that chimps would often trust each other to share the high quality food. If a receiving chimpanzee did not share the food, the betrayal of trust would be remembered and on the next round, the chimp less likely to be generous towards the conspecific who had done him dirty in the prior round. Trust was measured by probability of sending high quality food to the chimp partner. Over all, trust increased over time between chimps who shared with each other, and trust decreased over time between chimps who had a history of betrayal [7].
*Religion Supports the Nice Element of Tit for Tat*
The nice element of a tit for tat ethic is to always initiate with altruistic behavior towards others. The golden rule is the religious expression of this nice element - how we should treat others the way we want to be treated, which would mean we should assume that others are like us and deserve altruistic treatment by default. This golden rule is expressed in many religions, almost to the point of becoming a human universal.
*The Golden Rule*
Hinduism: "Everything you should do you will find in this: Do nothing unto others that would hurt you if it were done unto you" (Mahabharata 5:1517). Buddhism: "Do not offend others as you would not want to be offended" (Udana-Varga 5:18). Taoism: "The successes of your neighbor and their losses will be to you as if they were your own" (T'ai-shang Kan-ying P'ien). Confucianism: "Is there any rule that one should follow all of one's life? Yes! The rule of the gentle goodness: That which we do not wish to be done unto us, we do not do unto others" (Analects 15:23). Judaism: "That which you do not wish for yourself, you shall not wish for your neighbor. This is the whole law: the rest is only commentary" (Talmud Shabbat 31a). Christianity: "In everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you. For this sums up the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Islam: "None of you shall be true believers unless you wish for your brother the same that you wish for yourself" (Hadith 13).
*Religion Undoes the Revenge Element of Tit for Tat*
The tit for tat ethic assumes a personal responsibility to ensure justice in your local relationships. If you are betrayed, you will punish the betrayer. If you are rewarded, you will reward your benefactor. Religion turns this logic upside-down by convincing the believer that "tit for tat" justice is woven into the metaphysical fabric of the universe - either by karmic forces or by God's omnipotence. By shifting the tit for tat ethic to the universe, it removes personal responsibility for ensuring justice. This could have both beneficial and detrimental effects.
*Detriments of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
But it can be socially detrimental in that it can make believers apathetic about the principle of justice and their social responsibility to maintain it since justice during this life might not be important since a superior cosmic justice is waiting for us. It can be personally detrimental when you choose to endure abuses in hopes of an eternal reward. It can be detrimental to the course of evolution if no one punishes sub-groups that evolve an abusive ethic.
*Benefits of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
It could be psychologically beneficial, in that it comforts the distressed mind about the unfairness of crime and abuse - the universe will satisfy the psychological need for tit for tat justice. It can be survivalistically beneficial, in that your survival is more likely when you abstain from attempting to get revenge personally. It could be socially beneficial, in that it demotivates personal attempts at revenge which can create dangerous negative feedback loops (blood feuds between clans). It could be beneficial towards classes of people who lack social power, in that it allows your group to survive in a hostile environment by enduring abuses rather than offending those in power with feeble attempts at retribution (Nietzschean slave morality).
*Nietzschean Slave Morality*
Nietzsche posited that morality was essentially a class-based phenomenon where the powerful and the powerless adopted different virtues to match the needs of their different roles. The "masters" were the rich, powerful elites who embraces their successes as virtuous. The "slaves" were the poor, powerless servants who resented the upper class as evil. Based on these two perspectives, different moral codes would result. The rich would embrace gluttony, sensuality, dominion, and competence as signs of virtue. The poor would vilify the virtues of the rich, and converting their own status quo into virtues. If the poor lacked food, then fasting was virtuous. If the poor lacked women, then chastity and celibacy were virtuous. If the poor lacked status, then humility was virtuous. If the poor lacked power, then meekness was virtuous. By embracing virtues like humility and meekness, the slaves were more likely to survive in the face of their oppressors. The villainization of the attributes of the masters would eventually unite the minds of the population against the abusers - making it a powerful long-term revolutionary tactic. Instead of taking tit for tat physical revenge against the oppressors, they take revenge on their ideas.
*Game Theory of Abstracted Tit for Tat*
There might be a game theoretical advantage to this submissive ethic in that - abusive people might be able to get away with abusing a series of people, but one day they will abuse the wrong person and become eliminated by retribution. If individuals take revenge into their own hands, they suffer a risk of getting damaged in the process. By following a submissive ethic, as long as there are others in the population without a submissive ethic, someone else can absorb the risk of taking revenge on your behalf. This would increase the survival rate of the submissive ethic while not necessarily allowing an abusive ethic to pervade.
*Judgemental Karma*
The toxic aspect of karma is when it is used by people to infer conclusions about an individual's character by backing into their character from what they observe an individual receiving from the universe. If Job receives bad things, then Job must have been bad in order to trigger this karma. Unfortunately this is still a temptation for Christians despite their access to Jesus's doctrine. Conversely, theists can be tempted to assume that non-theists or ex-theists are deserving of bad luck or curses because of karmic logic. With confirmation bias at hand, theists can ignore years of good luck, and the moment the perceived "sinner" has a year of bad luck, the theist now have evidence that their metaphysical superstitions were correct. This toxic perspective that "sinners" deserve their suffering leads to apathy about improving wellbeing for all. There is an argument that creating social structures that maximizing wellbeing subtract from God's ability to enact karmic justice in the world. By maintaining the possibility for suffering in the lower classes of society, a pocket of reality is maintained for allocation to the "sinners".
NEXT: Chapter 5 - God is a disciplinary father
