I think that both Karma and a Meritism common view both have a sort of moral elitism, where the unfortunate deserve the little they have and the fortunate are deserving. I dislike both.

I define Meritism as the belief that if you are bright, honest and work hard then you will live a successful and happy life.

And I define Karma as the view that people deserve what they get because of their past actions.


Imagine;

Aaron, a 26 year old homeless person in New York. Who spent the majority of available money on cigarettes. He was severely malnourished and generally close to starving. He froze to death in his home, under the Manhattan bridge.

  • Karma. (he was a selfish English Lord in his previous life)
  • Meritism. (he was lazy and should have worked harder)

Anu, a 14 year old girl in India, was caught robbing a house by the owners. The owners her into bonded labor and has now been a sex slave for the past 3 years.

  • Karma. (she stole)
  • Meritism. (_

Amir, an 33 year old extremist who recently graduated Tehran university. He who was caught attempting to blow up a local bus. He is sentenced to death and hung.

  • Karma. (he was an extremist in this life)
  • Meritism. (he was an extremist in this life)

They deserve what they get because they are being punished for their wrong doings in this life and/or their past lives.

But wait a minute;

Aaron was a product of his environment. When Arron was in his mothers womb she drank heavily and smoked crack, while also suffering from acute malnutrition. (If there are not enough resources/nutrients during growth in the placenta the fetus will cut corners starting with mental faculties.) This meant that Aaron had an IQ of 94. His father was lazy and always bought takeaways, (McDonalds and KFC were his favorites) ensuring that Aaron was overweight for much of his childhood, this led to bullying during school and psychological disorders to haunt him. Now who would want to hire a stupid mentally unstable person? Arron didn’t have any family or friends who cared or wanted to help.

Anu is one of millions of orphans in India. There is no one coming to help her, she is a dalit. As she has not been graced with beauty it is unlikely anyone will notice her plight. She has to steal from local markets and scavenge rubbish, else she will starve. She has lived like this for 3 years since her parents abandoned her. Her parents, like many others, realise that they cannot afford to take care of their daughter (in favour of their sons) so they abandon (or sell) them. She decided to steal money, possessions and whatever else she could find so that she could support herself and possibly even go to school.

Amir turned to violence as it seemed the only option. His life, and that of his family and friends, was not safe or happy. He wanted to make a difference and change the status quo, so he turned to the only group still around that was trying to change things… an extremist cell. And why was he in such a poor and violent state? His country has oil! Oil which many militia groups sought to control, leading to constant civil war, with no stable government. Thus, no reliable public infrastructure; education, healthcare, … and no reliable police force. The extrenist cell promised to change all this, and Amir believed them.

How can we blame these people for who they are, when the problem is clearly their environment. I imagine that I would have turned out almost exactly the same if I had similar experiences to these examples, but instead I was raised in a middle class household in a developed country with loving and responsible parents. No expense was spared for my eduction … etc