Originally posted by Rajk999
Well said yourself .. better in fact.
I know many people are capable of rising above the sheep syndrome and capable to exercising more authority over their own beliefs, but many cannot. They just dont know better. They just cant think for themselves. Its no fault of their own. Any thoughts on what will be their fate on judgement day? Bear in mind that the you wont be expected to produce 10 with it.
Edit : Sorry dont know what caused the italics
These seem to be the “cosmic judgment” possibilities:
(1) Nobody gets away with anything.
(2) Nobody gets away with everything. (Or some people get away with something.)
(3) Some people get away with everything.
(4) Everybody gets away with everything.
Setting aside for the moment questions of punishment fitting the crime, or taking account of mitigating circumstances and the like, this seems to lay out the “mercy versus condemnation” possibilities.
I have yet to meet anyone who believes in an individual after-life, except for those who think (1) is the correct answer, who thinks that s/he isn’t going to “get away” with something (e.g., receive no retribution for their sins). Just for example—
Christians generally believe that by accepting Christ, they will get away with their sins (past ones anyway)—that is, they generally seem to believe that (3). Karmic Hindus may believe (1), but that we have an endless round of reincarnations in order to attain salvation. Muslims seem to reject (4), and leave the rest to God’s mercy/judgment.
What I have not come across is someone who is, say, a Christian who adheres to the tenets of Christianity (as he sees them) because he thinks they are true, but who also believes that he will not be saved.
Frankly, only those who adhere to (1) seem to me to be in a position to reasonably complain about the “injustice” of possibility (4). But such complaints seem to generally take the form of what I call an “argument from terribleness”—i.e., “But it would be just terrible if everybody got away with everything!”
One can take one’s pick—for whatever reasons—among those four possibilities. Note that I am speaking here of ultimate “cosmic” judgment; someone who believes in justice (however they define it—I leave that open here) in this existence could certainly try to ensure that nobody gets away with anything in this life, even if they think that there is no judgment in an after-life.
Since my personal view is that death is simply dissolution of this one-time individual existence and return into the whole from whence we arose (and of which we are), I see (4) as the likely case—terrible or not. This does not mean that I try to “get away with” as much as I can, since I do not see that attitude as consistent with living a serene, joyful and flourishing life. I make errors, rectify them when I can, and move on. If there is someone who thinks that rape, for example, is consistent with a serene, joyful and flourishing life, I will try to prevent them from exercising that choice. (I also think they are deluded, to say the least.)
If my view is wrong (that is, (4) does not hold), then I unconditionally trust God or the Tao or Nature or whatever with regard to the ultimate disposition of whatever individuality survives death—whether that means that I get away with anything or not (which is part of why it’s unconditional). That is a deep existential “decision” that I cannot explain, except to say ... No, I’ll just let that go. The personal history involved is too complex, and is not up for debate here.
As for my own personal “moral theory,” I have grown quite weary of debating such questions on here, and will simply refrain.
None of that likely answers your question.
BTW, italics sometimes carry over from the post you're responding to (same with bold). If it happens, you can can edit it out by putting [ / i ] or [ / b ] (without the spaces) at the very beginning of your post.