Do people get according to their deeds?



Do the good and bad deeds of a person pay off? I had seen many of such examples and even heard of many, but I'm quite unsure of whether this is just a belief or are there any ideal principles behind it. If a person does something bad to someone, does he really get back on to himself or it might be just a coincidence? I would like to clear that I'm not a philosophy student, though I'm quite interested in and wanna study also. So please do not use such words which may pose more difficulty.

Vidhi Gupta

Posted 2017-08-13T18:13:24.030

Reputation: 31

Some religious systems postulate a metaphysical law of retribution for "bad" deeds, such as going to hell in Christianity or karma in Oriental philosophies. These involve the "next life", however, to compensate for the obviously limited effectiveness of legal systems and moral conscience in this one. Beyond that there is nothing beyond "vice is its own punishment and virtue is its own reward", I am afraid.

– Conifold – 2017-08-13T19:25:54.020

By your last statement, do you mean that the person who does bad, always feel guilty or demoralised even though he might not admit it in front of others. – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-14T03:09:53.653

Not necessarily, although people do interpret it that way. But philosophers can mean it more objectively: vice diminishes person's value and virtue inhances is, whether they feel anything or not, admit it or not, care or not. Just as color blind people, who never learn that they are color blind, would still miss something. – Conifold – 2017-08-14T03:24:50.867

Nice example of colourblinds. Can this might be a reason that many of such persons don't lead a happy life although they pretend to be happy in front of the world? – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-14T03:50:41.750

They do not have to pretend, to them what they have is happiness. It is to a happier (more ethical?) person that the deficiency becomes apparent. One needs to experience the colors to appreciate what they are missing. Of course, this is controversial. One could say instead that moral and non-moral perspectives are both subjective, and neither is any more "true" than the ther, and that the correlation with "happiness" is questionable. – Conifold – 2017-08-14T03:59:01.500



In the perennial philosophy the laws of causation (in an ethical context) apply to intentions and motivations, not to deeds. If we help an old lady across the road and she gets run over half way across we are not marked down for this since it has nothing to do with our intentions. A teaching story has it that Buddha committed a murder in a previous life in order to save others from being murdered. The deed seems reprehensible, but the motive is what counts.

The punishment and rewards would be self-administered and this would be why we cannot escape our fate, that we will be our own judge and jury. We were there and know exactly our state of mind and intentions at the time. Socrates indicates this view when he says,'The price of a lack of virtue is a disordered soul'. A disordered soul would be its own punishment, just as virtue would be its own reward.

Ignorance of the effects of actions would be a valid excuse, but a failure to make any attempt to dispel our ignorance would have no excuse. Feigning ignorance would be impossible and pointless because no outside agency would be judging us. When a rock falls off a cliff it follows the laws of the universe all the way to the bottom, and the laws of karma would be just the same for falling humans.

What this would mean is that are no blanket rules. As the OP says, murder, criminal acts etc. are not always wrong since context is everything. Purity of heart would overcome all ethical errors and this would be connected to the teaching that those who are enlightened, thus free from any egoic tendency to think or act to the detriment of others, transcend the legacy of their karmic history.

This seems to be in line with the idea mentioned in another reply that it is the state of our consciousness that matters, and that determines the strength of the connection between our deeds and their consequences.


Posted 2017-08-13T18:13:24.030


Ignorance of the effects of actions would be a valid excuse, but a failure to make any attempt to dispel our ignorance would have no excuse.  I didn't understand this statement well. Can you please explain this. – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T11:43:31.943

@Vidhi Gupta Sure. Ignorance of the effects of our actions may be a fair excuse when they are not as we expected and in any case we never know the full effect of our actions. We may mean well but have made a mistake as to how to act. But meaning well is a poor excuse when we have made no effort to understand our situation. As well as the details the 'situation' would include who we are and what sort of world we live in. Thus in mysticism great emphasis placed on dispelling ignorance prior getting busy trying to help people, for our efforts are likely to be ineffective or backfire. . – None – 2017-08-17T14:07:02.383


The answer is simple: Yes and No.

People who perform good deeds are certainly rewarded with the good feelings that come from doing good deeds. They are also likely to be esteemed and supported by the community.

On the other side of the coin is the adage crime doesn't pay. Criminals are often caught and prosecuted. Even those who aren't caught may be forced into hiding or may suffer from a "guilty conscience."

However, those are generalizations. In the political arena, crimes pays big time. Corrupt politicians can exploit and even murder millions of people and never spend a day in jail. They can become millionaires. Just about any U.S. President could be used as an example.

Ditto for CEO's, like Bill Gates. The same applies to the media and contemporary labor unions.

So one can be variously punished or rewarded for bad deeds. In general, I think it's safe to say that those who profit from crime tend to be more powerful and are generally associated with "organized crime," which can include governments.

Good deeds are probably more likely to pay dividends, even if they aren't monetary. However, they can be punished - especially in the political arena.

For example, activists who fight for social justice are typically insulted, harassed and even murdered.

On a bit of a tangent, I find it interesting that evil seems to ordinarily prevail over good, at least at the higher levels of the political system. Think about the Roman Empire, the European colonial empires and the United States. There are amazingly few stories about "good leaders."

One of the political/psychological questions I've long pursued is why it's so hard for good to triumph over evil. Ironically, one of the problems may be the victims, who are often too "good" to fight back.

David Blomstrom

Posted 2017-08-13T18:13:24.030

Reputation: 1

One of the political/psychological questions I've long pursued is why it's so hard for good to triumph over evil. Ironically, one of the problems may be the victims, who are often too "good" to fight back. Ya, I agree. It wouldn't be so hard for good to triumph over evil if they manage to find the right way of doing it anyhow. Well, thanks for the answer. – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-13T18:52:02.760

Which begs the question, are teachers and parents who don't defend their own children from evil people evil themselves? – David Blomstrom – 2017-08-13T19:26:10.330

A kind of, maybe. Or you can say upto some extent, they are doing evil. As is said, one who let's crime happen is far worse than the one who does it. As well, children are in their critical period of life, and if they be moulded wrong, it will definitely affect their whole life. So it's the duty of the guardians to defend their children from becoming a bad person for the whole of their lives. – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-14T03:18:29.343


According to Indian Vedic scriptures The answer to above question depends on what kind of person he/she is. There are three main kinds of people, namely, 1) Sattvik 2) Rajas 3)Tamas

Then there are thousands of types derived of permutations of these basic types. IF the person is more on Sattvik side, He becomes more aware of his consciousness and so the results of his deeds come faster and clearer, while if he lies near the Tamasik side , He becomes more and more unaware of his consciousness and consequently his deeds, Therefore the results of his deeds come slower and unclear . An animal or a plant are towards Tamasik side , as the level of there consciousness is very low compared to most of the humans , while the gods and goddesses depicted in scriptures have a higher level of consciousness than humans as they are near the Sattvik side of this scale of consciousness. So, it depends on the consciousness of person.


Posted 2017-08-13T18:13:24.030

Reputation: 27

And what about rajas as you didn't describe it? – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T05:29:32.013

As well, if a person lies near tamasik side, he becomes more unaware of his consciousness and the results of his deeds are thus slower as you said. What does that mean? It implies to me like anyone who does wrong should become unaware of what he did or forget his bad deed, he will have unclear results meaning he will never be able to regret on his doings and consequently will continue his doings?? Please explain. – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T05:35:13.750

Rajas is where most of the humans lie, It is a state where The person is Attached to all worldly things, रजो रागात्मको as described in Bhagvad gita, Rajas is filled with Attachments, So it is somewhere in between those two states. Results are slower and unclearer than the sattvik state but faster and clearer than the Tamasik state. – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T05:36:35.483

If everybody can derive easily that whatever sorrow, grief they are experiencing is the result of their previous deeds, nobody would ever do such deeds and the world would come to an end, because everybody will get moksha. So it is Maya which creates a veil before the eyes of a person so that he cannot derive the truth easily. The mechanism of doing so is as described in my post – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T05:41:34.270

The mechanism is Automatically such that , Good is attracted to more good and Bad to bad. – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T05:42:53.917

"If everybody can derive easily that whatever sorrow, grief they are experiencing is the result of their previous deeds", by this statement should I contemplate the answer to my question that a person is surely paid off for his deeds. As because whatever grief or happiness is he experiencing is the actual outcome of his previous deeds, though its true that all might not be able to derive the truth easily?? – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T06:40:54.120

ya, you can conclude that, But the time taken in ripening of Karma can be different in different persons. – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T06:46:04.667

Sorry to go off-question but can we then guarantee that person will not die before ripening of his karma? Though that might sound weird, but it's actually controversial. Its philosophy, so I can argue. The conclusion which I brought about in whole of our discussions will be fake?? – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T06:56:02.833

It won't be fake because if we take The Karma concept as the basis of this discussion, In the context of your latest argument, There will be rebirth and the Karma will continue to play it's role in new life too. – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T07:13:18.483

upvote if you liked the answer – techvish81 – 2017-08-17T07:25:15.330

I am not that reputed for my votes to be displayed. Haha! But they have been recorded. Had an interesting argument with you. Thanks – Vidhi Gupta – 2017-08-17T07:35:44.787