As a little objectivist thought experiment, if I were to consider the collective retrospection of society in the future as a kind of semi-omnipotent presence...how would that correlate with other aspects of religion such as afterlife, sinning, etc?
Firstly assuming that somehow when we all die we return to a big cloud of context or information as somehow sentient beings, if in life I were a genocidal pedophile rapist who has a well documented love for drinking smoothies comprised of blended up kittens I would probably have a long legacy of my name being tentatively mentioned about as often as a slur. Would having a legacy of pure disdain be equivalent to an afterlife of torment, or would I still get kicks from seeing people getting disgusted? Considering the possibility that people who would get kicks from that are performing narcissistic defense mechanisms to shield how painful it would actually feel, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider that being a kind of eternal torment. If in some cruel twist of fate it were actually possible for those generally adept manipulators to feel genuine blissful emotion from hearing the discontent of others toward their character rather than simply bluffing joy then that would just about throw that entire premise out the window.
Perhaps if I were to ignore the fairly rare outliars in society and focused entirely on neurotypical individuals with relative class freedom the system would work as intended? People in those circumstances who aid the collective consciousness in the longrun would be 'blessed' while otherwise if they commit a very unpopular action they will be 'cursed' and thus ostracized into likely obscurity. It seems as though the 'cursed' of us that somehow evade obscurity are ones that vicariously aid the collective consciousness by simply being entertaining to talk about. People who have historically been 'boring' about how they've committed depraved actions are generally just assigned archetypes and immediately forgotten about. In this case I'd suppose that in order to appease such a collective consciousness as a deity one could optionally throw the rule book of morality completely outside the window as just a kind of mid-risk mid-reward strategy. Having consistent and easy to read values regardless of morality seems to be the most common throughline for people who are successful in such a feat.
If Jack The Ripper threw in a few government officials and circus performers to the pile of otherwise just dead prostitute cases then he would have been looked at entirely differently. Given the time period he was in it isn't unreasonable to assume that he could have been a god fearing man who thought he was fighting sin through killing sinners. The fact that there is so much mystery to the case compiled with the fact that it can be boiled down to one sentence of information makes it a potent story that has stood the test of time regardless of the morality involved. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum we have the notorious goody two shoes that often activate our 'dethrone the alpha' parts of our caveman brains. People who have seemingly done no wrong have witch hunts performed on them to get to their soft white underbelly of depravity. It seems as though the high morality end of the spectrum is potent yet unweildy, while the low morality end is largely impotent yet tends to not surprise people when extra depravity is added to the mix. People with legacies that err on the side of depravity tend to not have people trying to claw them down from any semblance of footprint for the sake of novelty, which arguably is a higher reward than being a person with a legacy that errs on the side of morality to the extent that people will seek to crumble it to feel better about themselves.
Finishing off, it is honestly quite difficult to decode exactly what a 'social sin' is past the point of intuition, let alone the implications of them. I'm likely committing an egregious one right now by writing all of this despite lacking a degree in anything. I would have a very hard time trying to convince anyone that I wasn't an egoist since any defence against such a claim is a double bind in and of itself. In that sense by writing something like this for fun so I can weird out someone gawking at a wacky strangers on the deep web who post despite having zero following I've let loose a 'curse' on myself.
If the afterlife were legacy abiding by the laws of Social Darwinism then that would have some very existential connotations. I suppose the only thing there would be to do is communication with the future using our actions regardless of what there is to say. I'll probably have egg on my face by the time I get past the icebreaker.