THE TALK
The theory of karma posits a natural relation between an agent, the agent’s action, and the fruits of the agent’s actions. The theory connects virtuous actions to virtuous fruits and vicious actions to vicious fruits. My talk addresses this puzzle: if karma is such a relation, then can it provide a reason to be just? While it is easy to motivate the thought that it provides a reason to perform imperfect duties like charity, it is harder to make the case that it provides a reason to perform a perfect duty like justice, which may impose enormous costs on the agent. I construct an argument that analogises our ignorance about our future states and our circumstances in them with Rawls’ veil of ignorance, to argue for the conditional: if the theory of karma is true, you have a reason to be just.