[valiumcheapll]

I'm putting this in the Beginners' board because, as a beginner, it's actually a big problem for me.

A lot of people on this board are probably pretty familiar with the Just World Phenomenon or Just World fallacy, but here's a link just so that people definitely know where I'm coming from.

There's a whole Wikipedia article about this, but the intro paragraphs pretty much cover where my head is right now.
The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is just so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable. Every time I think about karma, I think about the "just world fallacy." I know that for some people it gives them the explanation that they need to get through their own suffering to say, "This is the result of some action of mine, and I just need to accept it and find a way to deal with it or solve it." If that works for them, I'm glad that they have it.

However, I'm extremely troubled by it. I'm not sure that believing in karma and believing in injustice are compatible. After all, if something seems like injustice, it could also be defined as the "victim" experiencing the natural consequence of some previous action or intention. It doesn't allow for people to experience hardship or suffering that they didn't cause for themselves.

This is a hard thing for me to swallow. I've tried to reconcile it a few different ways. The most notable one is that sometimes things happen to people which are better or worse than they have caused for themselves, and whoever causes that imbalance (for good or ill) has that tacked onto their own karma.

For example, if I just go out and steal somebody's property, I would say that the main reason why I accrue "bad" karma for this is that nobody deserves to have their property stolen. By the same token, if I treat someone better than their actions have earned, it's "good" karma for me because I am choosing to be compassionate rather than strictly and coldly just.

The alternative--to say that people's suffering is caused solely by themselves, and that all joy or pleasure is earned--has caused so much suffering that I find it hard to reconcile with the compassion Buddhism seems to be shooting for.

Does anybody have any thoughts?