How is Kaufman's example of the terrorist supposed to show that karma is incompatible with the idea of free will?
A) Whether the terrorist's bomb kills any particular victim depends not only on the terrorist's choices, but also on facts over which the victims had no control, such as whether they got stuck in traffic near the bomb.
B) The terrorist's freely willed act of detonating the bomb is a bad action, and so should lead to him being punished, but it only directly leads to the suffering and death of his innocent victims.
C) Either the terrorist's victims are fated to be killed by his bomb, in which case the terrorist is fated to detonate it, or the terrorist detonates it of his own free will, in which case his victims do not deserve their suffering.
D) If the terrorist detonates the bomb, then he is determining the victims' fate, rather than karma, and karma requires that each person's past deeds determines his or her fate.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Kaufman's example illustrates the incompatibility between karma and free will by presenting a scenario where either the terrorist's actions are predetermined (thus negating free will) or the victims suffer without deserving it (contradicting the principle of karma that suffering is a result of one's own past actions).

How Is Kaufman's Example of the Terrorist Supposed to Show