Lots of good constructive observations above. JMHO, but I believe many of them could be guidance to changing the title of the blog article. Whenever I've used absolute terms I've always had to eat them
The burden of proof was on me to show that there were no exceptions or no equally useful ways to see what I was describing. I've always lost that particular battle
(from the blog)...The fundamental delusion that characterizes our species in the age of barbarism is the belief that enduring happiness can be attained and sustained by bringing unhappiness to others.
Escaping that delusion is a great set of goals!
I worked in something similar for most of my working career, which was all before I began practicing Buddhism, btw. If you can imagine someone trapped in samsaric processes working to relieve suffering of others, that was me - chuckle.
My two cents worth, I wonder how many of our 6+ billion particualr species have that belief, especially that "bringing unhappiness" to others is a requirement. I don't have that motivation, for example. Even pre-Buddhism, I knew that happiness didn't require bringing unhappiness to others. Treatment could have been indicated for for persistent
beliefs like that, though I may be wrongly reading how you are using the terms.
Re animals can't have an abstract concept....my dog would argue with you, then ask if you had interviewed all members of all animal species
She does communicate to me that she wants to play - an abstract concept. She knows when it is time for supper or a treat and comes to get one of us if we are late according to her internal clock - then leads us to where we are supposed to be. Experiencing hunger might not be conceptual. Getting someone's attention that we are off schedule and correcting it sure seems that way. Without communicating it (a concept), she would be left simply feeling hunger, but she's learned to associate us with the process of getting fed. That association is part of the hard-wiring for survival, in most Western thought, but that process is one of forming concepts to interface with data.
So as a reader, I would take issue with "proof" and "inviolability." There are differences in the understanding of kamma/karma according to which tradition you are looking at. But just the other day I read one from Pema Chodron in her book, "Start where you are." She said that karma gives us the lessons we need to soften the heart, or words like that. I don't believe she was describing an aware process that karma chooses. It was more in line withpast karma "sets the stage" to repeat past life choices, but we can choose differently (my interpretation of what she said). I've read similar in Ajahn Chah's books, I think, that life gives us plenty to practice on each day, and that today is made (largely) of past kamma.
I don't think that is inconsistant with part of what you say. It says that the process
of kamma is inviolabile - like the natural law quotes above, you can't escape physics. The results
of kamma can certainly be subject to change and there's a lot written on that. I actually like the part of Tiltbillings tag line that "karma is the way to freedom (or words to that effect)" because I can choose in eadch moment to repeat the mistake or to choose the intent and my action.