A young man from the merchant caste in ancient India attempts to operate a business. During his first six months of operation, he experiences a flood, a fire, a robbery and an invasion of termites. He is no longer a happy merchant and blames his father for having given him his caste AND for giving him bad karma. Is the son correct in holding his father fully responsible for giving him both his caste AND his bad karma?

Yes the son is correct

Explanation:

He has morals

The son is not correct.

Explanation:

We know that for Indians the concept of karma and caste is a very religious thing. It is normal for members of a religion (any religion) to faithfully believe everything that is defended by that religion and we must not disrespect this belief in religious dogmas. However, it is important that everyone is aware of thinking rationally when a problem occurs to us. This is not happening in the question above.

We know that the son, shown in the question above, is blaming his father for all the problems that happened in his store. Based on religious concepts, this son claims that his father gave him a caste and bad karma, so he is an unhappy merchant. However, anyone who opens a store is at risk of suffering a flood, fire, assault and termite invasion, it does not depend on religion and it is not anyone's fault. This happens due to external factors that every trader has to be willing to prevent and overcome.