The tendency to think that, in a random or chaotic world, there is a certain tendency to justice (Karma, every pig gets its Saint Martin, etc.) It is a cognitive bias called "just world hypothesis."
There is evidence that seems to indicate that the insula and the somatosensory cortex they are responsible, at least in part, for us to cling to this equanimity hypothesis in which good works are rewarded and bad works are punished.
Since the world is not fair or rosy and that karma is nothing more than an invention of our brain, when we witness that bad things happen for no apparent reason then a disharmony occurs in us: we are convinced that the world is fair but the evidence presented to us goes in the opposite direction.
To ride this dissonance we use two strategies. The first is to assume that perhaps the world is not as we had believed and that karma does not exist. Nor do you get things as much as you want them.
The first strategy, however, is not the common one. The second is: we try to find a logic that explains why what we are seeing does fit the hypothesis of the just world. For example, if a woman is raped we could argue that she has sought it, because he dressed very provocatively. If they have spit on a politician, he has sought it out. If a millionaire is a bad person, it is because the business world is very competitive. And so on.
This inclination is also reinforced by the call correspondence bias or fundamental attribution error: We blame the misfortune of other people for their own incompetence or their bad decisions, but if the same happens to us, then we attribute it to bad luck or external circumstances.
Previous research has shown the existence of cultural differences because of the susceptibility of making a fundamental attribution error: people belonging to individualistic cultures (such as Americans) are more likely than individuals from collective cultures (such as the Japanese) to commit this type of error