Defining Sin

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Afterlife: Section 1.1

Section 1.1 explores the concept of sin and morality in relation to The Universal Law of Righteousness, emphasizing awareness of one's actions and their impacts on others in the context of an afterlife governed by a supreme deity with the qualities of omnipresence, integrity, and veracity.

There are ignorant people who speak flowery words and take delight in the letter of the law, saying that "There is nothing else." Their hearts are full of selfish desires. Their idea of heaven is their own enjoyment, and the aim of all their activities is pleasure and power -Bhagavad Gita 2:42-44

I established The Universal Law and The Conditional Truth in section 1 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Afterlife. The Universal Law of Righteousness is the quality of being morally right or justifiable. If there is an afterlife, and if the supreme deity has the following qualities listed in Section 1, then by all logical reasoning, these 2—so far—laws of the afterlife must be true, but what is being morally right? What does The Universal Law look like in action, and at what scale?

Sin is defined as "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law." It is a common subject across religious faiths worldwide. To the supreme deity, a person who does not follow The Universal Law of Righteousness is sinning. Furthermore, all transgressions of this law must not be equal. This is gambled on the supreme deity having the qualities mentioned in the previous chapter. If that is so, they rationally would not value all sins at the same level. Humans are predominantly individualistic, and because of that individualism, humans—consciously or subconsciously—will choose their own and especially their perceived "tribe's" contentment over others' well-being. In the modern world, the production and, in some cases, the use of everyday items are unethical and harmful to other beings.

An example is the Conflict Minerals used to produce our phones, cars, and the computer I am writing on. Another more recent case that has only become increasingly detrimental to the environment and communities is the use of Artificial intelligence. Evidently, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. If all sins had the same value, how could any citizens of a capitalist state even come close to a favorable outcome in the Afterlife?

Redefining sin

The most significant factor in committing a sin must be awareness of the act. Most notably, the awareness that one's actions are harming another. Let's think of it like this: When a child reaches to touch a red-hot stovetop, they—at that point—do not know it will burn them. They do not have the knowledge that such an action will cause them immense pain. Of course, once they touch the stovetop and learn the causation of their actions, the child will never do it again. We should treat sin the same way. Suppose one is completely unaware of the negative impacts of an action. In that case, it will cause no grievance to a deity who holds The Qualities. As soon as a person knows that an action will have negative impacts, then no matter how minute those impacts may seem to them, in the eyes of the supreme deity, they should never choose to do it again.

I will give an example: if I purchase fast fashion but am unaware of the unethical practices, environmental impacts, and exploitative low-cost labor. I do not believe I am committing a sin, but as soon as I learn about the immoral factors involved in creating such clothing and still choose to partake, whether for shallow reasoning such as social status or the clothing looks good, it is cheap, it is all I can afford—when thrift stores and other viable options of purchasing used or fair trade/practice clothing very much exist. I am then committing an immoral act. I am committing a sin. I personally am guilty of this, as many of us are. Many other factors play a part in this, particularly having access to those means. Many of us—especially those in the Western world—have access to those options, yet we still choose not to use them.

At this point, with the previous information mentioned in the guide, we can now determine what Hitchhiker's Guide To The Afterlife's definition of sin will be. We will include the guide's definition of The Universal Law of Righteousness and combine it with awareness of one's actions and effects. From now on, we will define sin as:

• Sin: An action committed with the awareness that it is immoral, amoral, and unjustifiable.

If anyone is even slightly aware that an action is immoral, amoral, and unjustifiable, then they have committed a sin.

Is morality subjective?

One may ask, "How can this be true? Throughout history, different societies have had different perspectives on morality. Various groups still have different perspectives on right and wrong in the modern world."

Of course, that is true, but I believe to the supreme deity, the universe, or whatever one thinks is the true governing force of nature—to "them," morality is objective. My proposed answer to the question above is that the supreme deity must have a set of objective rules or laws per se. Obviously, I do not know what these rules are, but that is why we established The Universal Law. The whole point of the guide is to lead the reader to a favorable—synonymous with deserving—outcome in the afterlife, whatever it may be. Most importantly, upholding this law must be done with no hope of personal gain. If one upholds the universal law for their own self prevalence in the afterlife, the supreme deity will not look at them as favorably as one who follows the law with the well-being of others strictly in mind. Even if the contents of this guide are entirely foolhardy, the only way we can succeed is through unity, as found in The Universal Law of Righteousness.