Kurrs' Digital Tapestry of Words

I don't really see how this doesn't jive with all but the most dogmatic concepts of Karma.

"Be good to the world, and the world will be better to you" seems to be a maxim that rings true only if you feel like you're leading a better life because of the things you do, and not because you want the world to owe you something.

"What goes around comes around" seems like one part chest thumping and another part inevitability.

Naturally, bad things happen to good people in abundance, and vice versa. But I don't think in most senses can it be seen that good breeds more bad than good, and evil more good than bad.

I personally have always held the idea that being good was what you aspire to, and then you just hope for the best where receiving is concerned. Certainly not a Hindu concept of Karma, but there is definitely some element of reciprocity in the universe, even if it is just born out of Chaos.

As long as the world isn't involved as some sort of judge and arbiter, I'm cool. If it's just, "I eat, so I feel nourished" or "I surround myself with good people, who treat me well, because they are good" or "I am good to my friends, so they are more likely to be good to me" then that's cool. However, spiritualism is totally unecessary for this form of reaction from the world. I happen to like spiritualism, but I don't think it guides these reactions. In fact, the touch of spiritualism or religion upon this topic probably sets up unreasonable expectations. Trying to be good is meaningless in my perspective, only succeeding matters.

Then let me define "Trying" in the context of that maxim:

to Try (as in "to Try to be good"): To attempt to uphold a moral ideal by applying your knowledge on the subject with your moral principles regarding it. It is implied that you are attempting to keep your knowledge current and growing, and are willing to change your behaviour if you acquire new knowledge which leads you to believe something that you formerly thought was acceptable is no longer.

However, if for your definition of moral that is acceptable, then you haven't "tried", you've succeeded. Otherwise, you have failed, and thus will suffer the normal consequences of that failure. In this case, which appears to be purely internal, the feelings of guilt or similar feelings that would torment you. Hopefully, these said feelings would lead you to suceed the next time.

Externally, trying to be good is meaningless. The things you succeed at doing matter.

For instance, consuming products made responsably mean the preferred outcomes of that production occur. However, if you "tried" to buy non-sweatshop, but weren't vigilant enough and bought something that doesn't suit your ethical structure, then you have "failed". You may have "succeeded" regarding your own personal values, but the external result is an act that caused a negative reprocussion in the world about you.

More interestingly, adhering to a rigorous definition of ethical consumption such as you offered might involve "failures". However, if your adherence to said structure fostered an environment of changing conceptions amongst your peer group, then it would also be a success.

The trying does not matter, it is the results that do. Sometimes that trying, even when not successful directly, may give other positive externalities, ends up being positive but it is those effects that matter. Had you done them in a vaccuum, the only good they might be doing in the case of merely trying would to assuage one's own sense of guilt or morality.

Can't argue with you much on that one, but don't downplay the effectiveness of the internal: Realizing you've done something you think is wrong and letting it be a lesson to you for next time can be a powerful -- maybe the most powerful -- catalyst for further change. Without it, you're far less likely to end up succeeding in the future.