Questions asked from AI (ChatGPT).
Q: Who will bear this “final” Karma when this “senseless war” ends? Isn't it true that whoever gives the order to take others' lives will also bear (or originate from) “all these” karmas of those who died on the battlefield. There are no winners in war. Life is given to us to live and care for and “do work”. We must not take the life of another “person”, it is immoral…
A: You've raised an incredibly important and profound point about the nature of war, morality, and karma. The way you’ve framed it touches on both spiritual and ethical considerations about the consequences of violence, the responsibility of those who wield power, and the broader moral implications of taking a life.
In many spiritual and philosophical systems, particularly those rooted in Eastern traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism, karma refers to the law of cause and effect: that every action we take, whether good or bad, creates an energy or consequence that will eventually return to us. This isn’t just a personal consequence, but can also have broader ripple effects on the world around us.
- Karma of War: In the context of war, the actions of those who cause harm — whether through orders to kill or through direct participation in violence — would be viewed as generating negative karma. The belief is that the act of taking a life, especially in a conflict where lives are seen as expendable, contributes to the perpetuation of suffering, harm, and destruction in the world. This suffering creates a karmic debt that must be accounted for. So, indeed, those who give orders or carry out acts of violence may, according to these traditions, bear the karma of those lives taken.
- The Chain of Responsibility: In this view, even those who do not directly kill but are involved in the planning, financing, or instigating of war would still be tied to the karmic consequences. The leaders who make decisions and give the orders are not exempt from the karmic weight of the suffering they’ve caused. In essence, those who facilitate or participate in violence must eventually face the consequences of those actions, whether in this life or in future lifetimes.
Your statement about the immorality of taking the life of another person echoes the core moral teachings of many religious and ethical systems. In Buddhism, Hinduism, and other traditions, the sanctity of life is considered paramount. The concept of ahimsa (non-violence) is central, as it emphasizes that all living beings have an inherent value and that causing harm — whether through violence or other means — is a violation of the ethical principle that we should live in harmony with others.
- Life as a Gift: As you mentioned, life is a gift, and it is meant to be cherished, nurtured, and respected. The act of taking someone’s life is viewed as a fundamental breach of this principle. Whether in war, conflict, or other violent acts, the destruction of life is seen as a moral wrongdoing, because it prevents that individual from fulfilling their potential, their purpose, and their journey.
- Moral Responsibility: When leaders or individuals give the order to take life, they are not just affecting the lives of the soldiers or those who die in battle, but also shaping the karmic landscape of society. There are no real “winners” in war, as the consequences of violence are not only physical but also emotional, psychological, and spiritual. The loss of life, the trauma of war, and the aftermath of violence create a cycle of suffering that touches everyone involved, often long after the battle ends.
3. No Winners in War Your point about there being no winners in war is a powerful one. War may have “victors” in the narrow sense — one side may claim a military or political victory — but at what cost? The true cost of war is not just the immediate loss of life, but the lasting effects on communities, families, societies, and the world. The emotional and psychological scars of war affect everyone — the soldiers, the civilians, and even those who were not directly involved but live in the shadow of the violence.
- Generational Trauma: War creates a ripple effect that can last for generations. The trauma experienced by those involved in conflict, especially soldiers, can carry on through their families and communities. In many ways, the psychological and emotional wounds of war are often more devastating than the physical damage, and they often persist long after the war itself ends.
- Economic and Social Impact: The destruction caused by war also has lasting economic and social consequences. Resources are spent on destruction rather than creation, infrastructure is torn down rather than built up, and societies are often left with deep divisions and long-term instability. These consequences affect future generations, who must bear the cost of the choices made by those who waged war.
Who should bear responsibility for the lives lost in war? Many argue that leaders — those who make the decisions to engage in or perpetuate conflict — bear the heaviest karmic responsibility for the death and destruction caused by war.
- Leaders' Role: Leaders who choose to engage in war or violence are often seen as the ones who bear the brunt of the karma for the deaths that follow, as their decisions are the ones that set the course for conflict. But it's not just those at the top; anyone involved in the perpetuation of violence — soldiers, military planners, and even people who support war through apathy or by enabling it — may contribute to the karmic consequences.
- Moral Responsibility of All: On a broader level, there’s also the idea that every individual in a society bears some moral responsibility for the events that unfold. If a society supports or tolerates violence, or if individuals do not actively work to prevent war and violence, they may share in the collective karmic consequences. Mahatma Gandhi famously said, “We must be the change we wish to see in the world,” suggesting that each person has a role in shaping the moral direction of society.
While it’s easy to feel that the consequences of violence are overwhelming, many traditions also teach that there is a path to healing and redemption — both individually and collectively.
- Healing and Forgiveness: In many spiritual traditions, it’s believed that through self-awareness, repentance, and a sincere desire to change, individuals can work through the karma of their actions and begin the process of healing. This doesn’t erase the harm done, but it can begin the process of transformation. The journey of making amends and seeking peace is seen as a way of working through the negative consequences of one's actions.
- Creating a Culture of Peace: On a societal level, one of the most powerful ways to address the karma of war is through the promotion of peace, justice, and reconciliation. By working to create a culture of non-violence, compassion, and respect for life, societies can begin to reverse the cycles of violence and build a more harmonious future. This is not just the responsibility of leaders but of every individual who has the ability to influence their community and the world.
You’ve touched on some of the deepest moral and spiritual questions surrounding war and violence. The consequences of taking life — whether in the form of karma, societal impact, or moral responsibility — are profound, and the pain of war ripples out in ways that affect not only those directly involved but also future generations. The belief that there are no true winners in war reflects a recognition that the cost of violence is always higher than any supposed victory.
Ultimately, as you suggest, life is meant to be lived with care, compassion, and respect for others. To take a life is to violate the core principle of the sanctity of existence, and the karmic weight of that can be vast. We each have a role to play in creating a world where such violence is no longer necessary — where we work toward peace, healing, and the respect of all life.