It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do You Think You Can Go To Hell For Indirectly Causing Death? Redux

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:06 PM
The contents of this post were previously posted by GreenBicMan a year ago. It was BelowTopSecret and the thread is dead now.

But I liked it, so I'm reposting it. There were lots of good posts in the dead thread, but I wanted to hear how new people would answer.

The title indicates the issue is about going to hell or not and that is a component - feel free to zero in on that if you like. But I think the real point is an ethical/philosophical issue about issuing culpability.

First Example:

Let's say you own Company X. Company X lays off Worker. Worker, being distraught from mental anguish, is driving home, crying, gets into an accident and dies.

Is the person that owns Company X going to hell?

Second Example:

Ok, same scenario, but Worker doesn't die driving home. Worker forced to get job at 7-11 to pay bills in meantime. Worker gone when kid comes home after school because of odd hours. On the kid's way home, no one meets them at bus stop, someone comes by and murders kid.

Does person that owns Company X go to hell?

Third Example:

Owner of Company X has lied about financial reports for years and whole company went down because of this. Worker gets laid-off/fired and either gets in accident or kid gets murdered.

Does owner of Company X go to hell?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by Hadrian

No in all instances, imo

'Z' is a sociopath who murders ten people. He suffers numerous psychological disorders as did one of his parents and grandparents

Is 'Z' going to hell for murdering ten people ? Why, when he inherited his sociopathy from his father who inherited it from his father ? None of them are responsible and none should 'go to hell', despite their appalling crimes against humanity ?

Who is responsible ? Answer, no-one, unless we have the resources to trace 'Z's' ancestry back to 'Adam and Eve'. Even then, as God supposedly created Adam and Eve, then it's God who is ultimately responsible

Those who don't believe in an Ultimate Source of All will have to find someone/something else to hold responsible

It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect creatures and situations. It's called 'Life'. Stuff happens. It's not a movie. We aren't all going to live long and problem-free lives and disappear in a cloud of rose petals

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:14 PM
hmmm....I'm new to ATS so I'll bite.

I don't believe in hell. A person may experience hell after after death if it is believed that: a) hell exists and b) you deserve to be there.

I firmly believe that each person is responsible for his or her actions on Earth and will be required to experience the pain they caused others. For the normal person this will not be so bad. For someone like Hitler this could be considered hell, since he will have to experience each and every atrocity he committed while alive.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by Hadrian

Hmm, this thread is like opening Pandora's box. Have you ever read a book called the "Five People You Meet in Heaven"?

Long story short, a man dies, goes to heaven and meets people who he did not know in life, but who had an indirect influence in his life, or that he had indirectly influenced. One person he meets is a child he indirectly caused the death of, without knowing.

Does it mean hell for an eternity for causing a death indirectly?

Hell if I know. This man in the book met the person he caused the death of in heaven.

It's an interesting book that might answer your question if you believe in hell.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:24 PM
Ive also pondered that type of question, like if you are a gun manufacturer and the gun youve made kills some one are you responsible for the death for facilitating the tool of death?

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM
Nah, I don't believe in hell, but as you four, so far, have illustrated it's an interesting concept just to hear from where people are coming.

[edit on 4/15/2010 by Hadrian]

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by Hadrian

Answering the questions posed in this thread requires making some assumptions. Assumptions which are not made clear in the original post.

However, to answer for myself personally, were I the one rsponsible for making the decision, I would not condemn the people in any of the examples to an eternity of suffering.

In fact...given the first two examples, I don't think I'd even condemn them to mild verbal chastisement. I see no wrongdoing on the part of the company owner.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:31 PM
Thanks for bringing this thread back.

Also to the poster that referenced this book

Long story short, a man dies, goes to heaven and meets people who he did not know in life, but who had an indirect influence in his life, or that he had indirectly influenced. One person he meets is a child he indirectly caused the death of, without knowing.

Sounds pretty interesting.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by Dock9

I don't really believe in hell myself, but it is an interesting question. At least how guilty would you feel in some situations?

I would prob. live a lifetime of guilt even if not really justified. Everyone is different though, could be as bad as going to "hell".

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:46 PM
I concieve of "hell" or the closest thing to it.. is being trapped in an animalistic human body.. while having the mind and imagination to know that there is a better potential reality of harmony.. and YOU'RE NOT IN IT.

now .. if youre asking me about whether the accumulated KARMA.. from INTENTIONALLY causing suffering... comes back and affects our consciousness and health and our "destiny" ie: interferes with our interaction in this cause-and-effect world...

then i think that my answer to you would be that yes.. you'll be affected by negative influences to the degree that you've intentionally caused suffering on others.

now even then.. we can get into specifics.. i mean .. say it's WAR and one side's army has raped another's wives.. and the victimized side needs to stop the other... and they brutally strike vengance on them.

can we quantize that karma? is it "less" negative accrued karma because of the actions of the antagonists?

was justice done ?

could it have been handled by the victims without the barbarism reflected back?
could it have been done in a more orderly and peacefull method?

sometimes its just such a mess that people don't want to think about it they just want vengance...

but think of this...
instead of intentionally inflicting harm on the one who smote you..

try a little "prevenge" ...
and set up the situations as best as you can in life.. so that these circumstances .. vengance.. wrath.. etc.. come much less often..

pre-emtively set up your life with that in mind..

i know it's tough to turn the other cheek..
but when karma's involved.. that's yours to spend/gain.

back to your initial question..
i think it's all a matter of intention.. no matter what.
it's what you were planning to do in your mind.
it's the outcome you desired..

sometimes even just the thought of the desired outcome can echo through space and affect things...


we are in hell.
lets make it heaven!


posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Hadrian

Had to reply , just for fun ...

For starters , I don't believe in what you are 'assuming' hell is . That is , I don't believe in eternal damnation in a lake of fire .

But to show that my answer would be NO , here goes ...

My employer pays me , I take the check to the bank and cash it , stop at the store and run into a friend who asks to borrow $100 , I loan it to him , he takes it to the crack-house and buys dope , on his way home a cop gets behind him so he throws it out the window.

Some guy walking finds it and picks it up , goes home and smokes part of it , a friend of his shows up and wants to buy $20.00 worth from him , he leaves with the dope , goes home and smokes it and decides he wants to rob a liquor store to get money to buy more , so he steals his dad's pistol , goes and robs the liquor store ,

The clerk triggers the alarm as he is fleeing , so the cops are speeding towarda the scene of the crime , and a prostitute decides to cross the street without looking , the cop runs over the skank , killing her instantly and flinging her hand-bag 100 feet from the scene ,

here comes the guy running away from robbing the liquor store and snatches up the purse on his way by , he now has $500.00 that he has found in the purse , pluse the $500.00 that he got from robbing the liquor store ,

he goes to another dope house and spends the whole thousand on more crack , is walking home and along comes another cop who recognizes him from the description that the clerk at the liquor store has given , the doper ditches the dope and the gun and starts running , the cop shoots him and kills him ,

along comes a little kid and finds the gun and dope , goes home and gets smoked up on some crack all night , gets up the next morning and takes the gun to school and kills all of his classmates and then kills himself ...

who is 'going to hell' for all those deaths ?

Not me , it's my employer's fault for paying me on thursday instead of friday...

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:59 PM
All those people in your examples would be forced to deal with the issues internally, and either take blame or not. If they take personal blame, they can choose to forgive themselves and live guiltfree or they can suffer from guilt for the remainder of their mortal days.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Yes, you certainly avoided this scenario. But you did contribute. JK but seriously that is one too many sequences for me to associate anyone haha.

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by GreenBicMan

I certainly don't believe in patently absurd concepts like heaven or hell, but think the philosophical tone of the question is interesting.

My opinion is that in none of the three scenarios would the assumed guilty party be responsible for the death … and therefore wouldn't go to hell for this particular issue, though it seems likely they have committed other acts that would merit consideration.

In the first scenario, the owner can't be blamed for the accident because people can't be held responsible for the emotional states of others. What if a police officer pulled over an emotionally-fragile someone for speeding and they, too, ended up sobbing and caused an accident with fatalities? Is the police officer responsible for those fatalities? No way. Same here. That the owner's likability suffers from the fact that he's laying off people doesn't attribute to him guilt transference. The worker is responsible, though it is still an accident. No one here intended to kill anyone.

Same in scenario #2. It's the worker's "fault" for not having daycare for their children. Of course they may not have the means or whatever and that's why it's a cruel act of fate, not a murderous act of a malicious individual. The worker could have received a bonus at company X, but then was offered a higher salary by a competing company with the caveat that they work second shift … ultimately, kids get murdered. Is the guy at the competing company guilty of the kids' deaths because he offered someone a job?

Scenario #3 is most interesting, obviously, because you pre-assigned some culpability to the owner. But he's still not responsible for the death. What if he had not cooked the books, but had performed well enough to give the worker a 15% raise! The woman is ecstatic, driving home and, distracted, accident and death. In this scenario is the owner responsible for her death and hell-bound … for treating employees fair, rewarding performance and sharing the success of the company? No. Neither is he responsible for illegal business shenanigans causing the environment that created death. Actually, you can easily argue he's responsible for creating the environment. But he can't be responsible for the death.

It makes me think of the butterfly effect business. At some point, a person's influence ceases to be under their control and therefore they lose accountability. If the person didn't DIRECTLY cause the death or directly influence another to murder, they're not responsible. Like with Enron, deaths that resulted because of lost jobs, fortunes, retirement, etc. are not the responsibility of the Enron executives, despite their illegal behavior. The executives are guilty of crimes and they are guilty of causing the events that caused people to commit suicide (if, indeed, anyone did - I don't know). They would go to hell, but not because of murder (assuming some victims committed suicide).

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Dock9

I don't really believe in hell myself, but it is an interesting question. At least how guilty would you feel in some situations?

I would prob. live a lifetime of guilt even if not really justified. Everyone is different though, could be as bad as going to "hell".

Yes. You're right

But, we're programmed to feel guilty, aren't we ?

We're also encouraged by examples of irresponsible litigation (as gleefully reported by the whore media) to deny personal responsibility and cast the blame hither and yon

You're version of 'doing the right thing' might not be mine

Most of us try to do the 'right thing'. It's the best we have at the time, even though age, experience and subsequent events might prove we in fact did not do the 'right' thing at all

But were we trained for this ? Hell, even Supreme Court judges make what the majority of us regard sometimes as insane, even evil decisions --- and they are trained

I remember a book I read many years ago, which advocated 'consigning it all to God'

Which in turn requires us to surrender control

But we're not accustomed to, or comfortable with, surrendering control. It's something we're afraid of doing, even though we'd love to get that weight off our shoulders. Because we're afraid that if we relinquish control --- someone else will grasp it. And might use it against us

So, we shoulder the burden of 'decision', even though it's crushing us and despite that we'd love to run far away to a simpler life

Let's say we buy a car and it malfunctions at a critical juncture, resulting in one or more deaths

If we hadn't decided to drive to town to hire that stupid damn video, the accident would never have happened and those people would still be alive and their families wouldn't be living their worst nightmare

Is it sensible to spend years or even the rest of our lives, feeling guilt and depression because of what happened ?

Do we feel that guilt because we believe it's expected of us -- is the 'right' way to feel, under the circumstances ?

Are we being maudlin and pointlessly dramatising the situation ?

Is everything that happens, 'someone's fault' ? Were we raised in a home where 'fault' and 'blame' were always apportioned: key's lost --- someone's fault. Dinner burned --- someone's fault. Divorce --- someone's fault. Someone has cancer --- someone's fault. etc.

But people die just a dinners burn. That's been a constant since man commenced walking the planet. Dinners and death will always be with us. We might not like to dwell on this because it puts things beyond our control. But it's true

Nevertheless, we walk the tight-rope all the days of our lives, trying to balance 'doing the right thing' against acceptance of our basic powerlessness in most instances

Yesterday, in the UK news, it was reported that a 16 year old father had shaken his infant, causing death. On the surface, the boy was responsible for that child' death. Yet the father was little more than a child himself. Had no real training in parenthood. Probably didn't realise his own strenth OR his baby's fragility. Baby's gone now and he's all over the news as a baby-killer. Tragedy for all concerned.

But is there 'fault' to be apportioned, is there 'blame' to be lain ? On whom should we place responsibility and blame -- the young father ? The baby's mother, for placing her child in the hands of someone less experienced than herself ? The young parents' own parents -- for not impressing upon their children the dangers of shaking a baby in utter frustration ?

Maybe we should blame the authorities ? After all, they conducted research years ago, which revealed that the sound of a baby's cry causes females' pupils to dilate -- where as the same sound causes males' pupils to contract. So why haven't the authorities legislated so that males are not allowed near crying babies ?

Be great if Life came with a comprehensive book of instructions to be studied prior to an exam --- with failures to be 'sent back' as unsuitable candidates for life on earth. Instead, we have to learn as we go along. And suspended always above our heads is the Sword of Hell, of Blame, of Fault and of Damnation

Personally ? Personally, I believe we should be PAID to endure this life, lol. This life which is presented as a 'gift'. Where we are judged as guilty simply for existing, according to some religions. And where our performance is supposedly judged, regardless of how hard we try, and which results in our being given a Pass (Heaven) or Fail (Hell) -- even thought it is KNOWN that we have no choice about which genes flood our veins and determine many of our decisions/acts/supposed 'sins'

My advice (be nice if I could persuade myself to take it) would be to tell ourselves each night, ' God understands everything and everyone -- that's his job' -- and leave it at that, have a good night's sleep

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Dock9]

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
How many degrees away is indirect? Should we all stop paying taxes because we're going to hell for funding an endless war machine?

What about the engineer who built the plane that went down with the Polish president? Is he deserving of hell?

How about every single person who works in the fast food industry?

The CEO of Budwieser with alcohol being involved in many many deaths?

I guess the truth is we can never know what the consequences of our actions are going to be outside of our narrow window of experience.

They call it the butterfly effect.

new topics

top topics


log in