why karma theory fails as a logical explanation for evil?

Is karma truly a fair explanation for the cycle of suffering, or does it serve to justify injustice?

The doctrine of karma claims to offer a rational answer to the problem of evil, but closer scrutiny reveals that it often collapses—both as a logical system and as a moral framework. It reinforces oppression, blames victims, and discourages meaningful social change.

Consider a child born into extreme poverty, suffering from hunger, illness, or violence. When natural disasters kill thousands of innocent people, or a young girl is a victim of rape, can we really say their suffering is the deserved consequence of past-life actions? To look into the eyes of a suffering child and claim this is the result of their own karma.

Religions across the world have long struggled with the problem of evil, why do the innocent suffer? Some religions attempt to explain suffering as original sin, divine justice, or tests of faith - many of these explanations do not seem logical. In contrast, karma theory, on the surface, appears to provide a more structured, almost scientific answer: It posits that every action has a definite consequence, manifesting either in this life or in future lives. Unlike divine justice,  Karma theory appears to be a logical explanation because it operates as an ethical cause-and-effect system independent from God's will. But the rational appeal of the doctrine of karma collapses under scrutiny, as it appears to ultimately blame victims, justify atrocities, and undermine efforts to change unjust systems. This theory, which calls itself a universal moral law, is filled with contradictions. 

The principle of karma, which is based on a simple logic: good deeds yield good results and bad deeds yield bad results; unlike the concept of divine justice, karma operates like an automatic system. Max Weber even called it the world’s most logical theodicy, because it removes divine favoritism and creates an ethical justice system, so people consider it a rational model. 

The most significant ethical issue of karma theory is blaming the victim. This theory has been used to justify social inequalities like the caste system: being born as a brahmin is seen as a reward for past virtue, while being born as a Dalit is viewed as punishment for past misdeed. This mindset not only normalizes inequality but also absolves society of any moral obligation to correct injustice. This same logic of blaming the victim, is applied to gender based violence, disability, and poverty. 

Such thinking fosters apathy and acceptance of injustice, rather than motivating compassion or reform. A person may choose to believe in karma to make sense of their own suffering, but to tell another person that their pain is the result of past mistakes is cruel and unethical.

Even if we assume that karma theory is a system of justice, a significant problem arises: people do not remember the actions of their past lives. Unlike the human legal system, where accountability requires awareness of one’s actions, karma enforces repercussions without any collections of wrong doings. Can justice exist without memory? If a person cannot learn from their past mistakes, then what is even the point of the punishment? 

If karma is a universal law, how can religious rituals or prayers "burn off" bad karma? If karma is a scientific law, then how does religious intervention operate? This contradiction reveals that karma functions more as a belief system than a natural law. Additionally, karma lacks a universal ethical standard. Unlike philosophical systems such as Kantian ethics, which emphasize on duty regardless of consequences, karma is deeply dependent on context - what is considered right in one culture may be wrong in another, yet karma works in both cases. Without a consistent moral foundation, it cannot serve as the basis for true justice.

History is witness that religious and moral justification have been used for violence and oppression. If suffering is merely a karmic justice, then the oppressor can justify their atrocities as cosmic justice. This reasoning has been used to justify caste discrimination and religious violence.  

Karma’s greatest appeal is its promise of a scientific and non-arbitrary explanation for suffering. But when confronted with real-world tragedies- how do we explain the suffering of newborn babies? How do we justify natural disasters? How can millions of people killed in genocides be held responsible together at once? If suffering is merely the result of past actions, then no one can be considered an innocent victim? Every atrocity, every tragedy becomes merely a karmic settlement, making oppression not only justified but inevitable.

The biggest theological problem is that karma theory does not explain where the suffering originated. If every action is caused by prior karma, this leads to an infinite regress without a logical starting point. There must be initial injustice that was not the result of previous karma. Hindu philosophy often labels karma as anādi (beginningless), but this merely sidesteps the problem rather than solving it.

Karma doctrine may seem intellectually appealing due to its surface rationality, but as a moral and logical framework, it fails. It provides a flawed answer to the problem of evil—one that blames victims, weakens social justice, and cannot account for the randomness of suffering.

Perhaps, in trying to defend karma theory, we are asking the wrong question. Maybe, the question that is being asked - finding a perfectly logical solution to the problem of evil -  is a futile endeavor.