You could start your own thread on utilitarian ethics because there if you simply have your view on this thread or another there is a possibility that people who might be interested in it will not see it. There is a thread on the greater good on the front page which is new, but I am not sure that is exactly what you are looking for. There have been threads contrasting deontological and utilitarianism approaches to ethics, but not recently as far as I am aware.

My own view is that consequences of behaviour iin the real world are of supreme importance, and I think that is an argument against deontological approaches to good and evil. But, I do believe that there are some problems with utilitarianism. Partly, determining the greatest good is not simple because it involves so many factors. Also, it is not always possible to determine consequences of all actions. Therefore, I think that it is important to think about effects of action, but also to think about the meanings of those actions from specific subjective viewpoints, including competing subjectivities.

I definitely agree that there is 'no one answer' to the problem of evil. To 'preserve one's existence' seems to me to be an instinctual aspect of life and in the construction of morality, the idea of what must be preserved is essential. The idea of destruction, especially for human beings is where it gets more complex. It comes down to what is regarded as 'evil'. That is why I think that consideration of evil is important.

In war, evil is seen as the war against the 'enemy'. We have been through a war against terrorism. Perhaps, this was almost replaced globally as the war against Covid_19. But, the question may be can we really eliminate evil? Of course, I am not saying that we don't need to strive to overcome specific evils, but it is not simple. The war against Covid_19 shows this symbolically, as new mutant strains arise. Evil keeps arising in new guises in all aspects of life, and I think that it is more about holding it back. Christian thinking often pointed to a cosmic battle of good and evil, and this may have lead to an emphasis on fighting evil. But, here we are in 2021, with Covid_19 still in our midst, conflicts between many nations, nuclear threats and climate changes suggesting severe ecological problems.

I think that your idea of evil being 'trying to get back at God' for being in the world is one which some people have, even if they don't believe in a God literally. It may be about a general attitude of anger. Camus speaks of metaphysics rebellion, as a general approach of rebellion. This is also connected to his views of suicide and that can be seen as a form of metaphysics of rebellion in the face of the absurdities of existence.

I think that you are really describing a utilitarian approach to ethics, but more from the standpoint of the view that the individual subjects should be thinking of their own lives in terms of the greater good. I think that it is useful to think about, but the only problem is that it is prescriptive. I think that it may be easier to apply to the principle of evil than good in the sense of people wishing to avoid doing evil. I believe that is because most people fear evil to a large extent, although for some there may be some attraction to it in a gothic way, or as an act of rebellion. However, for many people there is a deep fear of evil. This may go back to the Christian idea of the devil. However, I believe that it exists beyond that as a fear of the 'dark' side of reality.

Interesting poem, and we could also ask what is nothing? Is it a complete absence, because as you point out,' ''nothing' never sleeps'. So, maybe, the idea of the void is important because it appears to be nothing, but it not mere absence, but a point from which something new will arise, as rebirth.

A few years ago I bought and read a book by Stephen Grosz, called, 'The Examined Life: How We Lose and Find Ourselves'. It was mainly a collection of psychological case studies, with the author being a psychoanalyst. I think that the idea of the 'examined life' is an approach which begins from the starting point of the importance of self knowledge, which incorporates aspects of psychology and, as @DingoJones points out, the centrality of reflection. This can be seen as a starting point for philosophy, including ethics, but with an emphasis on understanding the self, and subjectivity being at the core.

It goes back to Socrates, but has moved on into psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy, as well as counselling. I remember having some counselling when I was an adolescent by a pastoral counsellor, who used to keep stressing that, 'You have to lose yourself to find yourself'. But, when he went on further, I found this counsellor's philosophy was about the importance of losing one's own individuality in order to conform. I came to the view that finding one's own pathway, even though it often involves getting lost, or facing obstacles, can be extremely important, as both a psychological and philosophy quest.

I think that it is a problem that human beings don't all wish to be treated or have their needs met in exactly the same way is one of the complexities of life. I think that is even one of the problems of the categorical imperative because while we may think about universalisation we don't all want to do the same as each other.

I do believe that universalisation is about general issues of justice and fairness, but does need to allow for listening to the needs of individuals. I believe that one of the problems of advice is that it often involves assumptions that the person giving the advice knows what is good or bad for the other. I believe that is why counsellors avoid giving advice and try to listen and enable individuals to make their own decisions about their lives.

I have to admit that I am inclined to look at mysteries and even wrote a whole thread several months ago about philosophical mysteries and whether they can be solved. In some ways, I think that it some may give up and conclude there are no possible answers. Nevertheless, I think that, even then, we can create our own sense of meaning and purpose. But, generally, I believe that human beings are inclined to ask questions, and have done so ever since the dawn of human civilisation.

As far as the mystery of human existence is concerned, while it is not possible to answer definitely, I don't know how much of the discussion you have read. But, given the nature of it not being possible to come up with definitive answers, I think that some people have come up with some excellent attempts to answer this question during the last couple of weeks in this thread.

Perhaps, I did not explain clearly enough. I was trying to say that torture would be classified as being one of the most severe crimes, taking account of all factors. The end of the victim receiving repeated acts of torture and the ongoing malicious intent of the person perpetuating it.

But torturing someone over a period of time would involve the subjective experience of the person suffering as an end, and clear long term intent to harm. So, in the scheme of things, it would be seen as falling into the darkest regions of the spectrum of 'evil' acts. I am not trying to be pedantic, because all these factors would play so much weight in any legal evaluation of repeated a acts of torture.

That's interesting because I thought that you had started it as an alternative one. I have read some of yours but you may some relevant discussion on this one, because I have been extremely impressed by the quality of some of the replies which I have received.

Oh, I think that I now understand why you started another thread on what is evil. You thought that mine was based on religious assumptions. That is fine, but I will simply reassure you that I was not really coming from that angle, and I, and others in the thread embrace the question in the widest possible way.

I am glad that you have mentioned your post to @Trey because his thread is based on the same theme as mine, and he wrote his thread only about 12 hours after I began my one. He would probably find a lot of detailed discussion on this one, although he must be aware of it as has often been riding along next to mine. I was impressed by your post and do plan to give a more detailed response, but I had a lot of replies to write.

You have just written a great little short story on the theme of this thread, and I hope that others see it!

I think that it can be a challenge to work with people who have committed terrible crimes. But, I think that it is easier to work with those who show remorse than those who are actively harbouring malicious intent. I have definitely thought about what circumstances would lead me to do all sorts of things, which is a bit macabre, but I do have a gothic streak. If I can, I will see if I can read 'Wickedness' by Mary Midgely as it I am sure that it is very interesting.

The question is whether evil is purely an intention or a consequence though, which is of course a classic philosophy debate and, of course, the former is traced back to Kant. Personally, I think that both measures need to be taken into account, which enables juggling of objective and subjective aspects. I think that to see good and evil purely from an objective or subjective point of view alone is restrictive, and in all aspects of life we need to be able to consider both aspects, and this may be the creative aspect of it.

I believe that you have a useful basis for thinking about evil starting from our experiences and relating it in a wider way to others. Here, I think it involves think about our own suffering and connection it to potential evil of others who may suffer. This may be an existential approach, involving wisdom and compassion.

I do actually understand you being bewildered by what 'evil' is because I think that the nature of good and evil is one of the most complicated areas of philosophy. I have been reading the various replies on the thread yesterday and have been experiencing writer's block or brain fog thinking about it before writing replying

Yesterday, after reading a very impressive post by @Alkis Piskas, even though he did not mention Kant, it lead me to think how Kant's ideas have definite bearing on this topic. You have introduced a very helpful discussion on his thoughts about good and evil. If I think about my own history of thinking on the topic I believe that my own connection between morality and metaphysics it goes back to the connection which Kant spoke of.Of course, he developed his ideas in connection with a theist framework. However, beyond this, his connection is based on the idea of a priori principles. I am wondering how true or helpful a priori logic is a starting point for thinking about the principles of good and evil, and of course, Plato's ideas about underlying ideas.

I believe that it may involve juggling ideas about such objective principles with the practical expression in ethics in real life where it really matters, such as in issues of justice. Perhaps objective principles and moral subjective feelings can both be incorporated, to give a balanced perspective.I also do plan to read Hannah Arendt, as recommended by Banno. But, I do believe that it is a very difficult to think about and it may not be simply that, as you say, 'truth is painful', but also hard to fathom, However, the truth is painful when it becomes evident in the reality of suffering oneself, or witnessing the suffering of other people or other creatures.

I was taught the view that what happened in Nazi Germany was down to Hitler and people I have come across who were alive at the time seemed to have believed that. However, it does come down to whether what people had been lead to believe in the news was true. I have also come across some ideas suggesting that Hitler was following certain thinking in theosophy, such as Madam Blavatsky's notion of a master race.

But, one reason why I do wonder about the extent that Hitler was part of a much wider cultural movement is because I have read Jung's ideas about evil and some of the underlying ideas about the German race being superior are apparent in Jung's writings and many people reject Jung's views because of the way in which his views for this reason. And, Jung is not the only thinker of that time with such a slant to his writings.

I do wonder if human beings are able to learn from mistakes. I am not sure that the leaders of many of our countries do look at past errors, because there is so much going on, that the agenda may be so narrow. We spend time thinking about the philosophical questions about good and evil, but I don't think that many of those in power do. But, that is one of the reasons I think that philosophy should be at the forefront of cultural life. At least, this site is a public one, so let's hope that some people of influence read some of the debates and think about important issues. I am sure that many aspects of our contemporary world will be seen so differently in retrospect, but let's hope that there are no catastrophic events which wipe out vast numbers of people before people wake up to evil which may be lurking in our midst. I know that some people fear that Nazism may be on the rise again.

I know that it is hard to define evil precisely. I know that you say it is a Zen moment by not knowing what evil is. The only problem which I see is that by simply saying that you don't know what it is it makes it harder to even begin to think about the reality of evil in world affairs. Perhaps you just don't think that the word 'evil' is not particularly helpful as a starting line, but I am not sure whether or not this is what you mean.

I definitely believe that understanding how atrocities, such as the German concentration camp come about is essential and @Amitys reference to the 'Axis of Evil'is useful. I think that the way in which people are viewed as evil is part of the problem and how there is often an emphasis on trying to eradicate evil. Hitler was trying to create a master race and trying to get rid of people who he saw as not being pure. There was a whole war on terror and it is hard to know what is yet to come, including tensions between the West and China. Obviously, it is extremely complex because injustices have to be addressed, but there are so many potential problems which can arise, in addressing the problem of 'evil'. This is particularly true with the advances in weapons of mass destruction.

I am from a Catholic background, so most of my own thinking is influenced by my own sense of guilt. I think that a lot of people are a bit dismissive of the whole idea of a Catholic guilt complexes. But, I know that I experience it and most friends I have who are Catholics do so as well. Some Catholics probably don't, and aren't they lucky, and I am sure that many other Christians do too. I think that sometimes guilt can get in the way of seriously thinking about capability for good and evil, because the guilt itself can become the problem in itself. I'm not sure that confession really helped very much as it can be just a superficial process, and I can remember that when I really wanted to talk about issues they were far too complicated to try to explain in a confession box. I did have open confession a couple of times which felt like more helpful and felt like counselling. In fact, when I did some psychotherapy based courses it was surprising just how many of the students came from Catholic backgrounds.

I definitely believe that it is important to separate the nature of 'evil' acts from the people who have committed them. I have worked in some forensic settings with people who have committed very serious crimes and I found that this separation of the act from the actor was essential . It can be difficult to suspend judgements on people, especially if they seem to show the worst possible tendencies. But, I think that many people find some psychological reassurance by projecting evil onto those who reveal the worst side of human nature. But, I do think that it is worthwhile going beyond labelling certain people as 'evil' because they are just people, even if they do behave in extreme ways which we view as being monstrous.

I think that it is a matter of speculation whether 'all philosophy questions are rhetorical questions.' which we may ask are rhetorical or much more. I know that I ask a lot of questions, and I am aware that many of them are extremely difficult to find answers to. They are asked with a view to starting discourse and some genuine attempt to find some kind of answers but I am aware of how many of the real metaphysical questions don't have any clear ones.

I know that you often call me 'Truthseeker', and this is partly the case because I do spend a lot of time thinking about issues, especially the question of life after death. However, I think that at times I am even afraid of a clear answer. I am partly afraid of nothing beyond death, but, equally, afraid of what any possible afterlife may be as well. I have spent a lot of time dwelling on the question, because I think that it matters so much whether we are mortal or immortal. But the paradox is that I would probably be shocked if there was a proven answer, even though I know that you and many others do believe that it is obvious that there is no life after death.

But, I have often thought that I don't wish to spend chunks of time reading and thinking on the question of life after death rather than living a life. This probably applies to many of the philosophy questions, including the mind and body one. The problem may be that some of us can't help but do that. It may be that some human beings are hardwired to be rhetorical creatures.

I think that it was extremely unhelpful when human beings were cast under the doom and gloom of 'sin'. However, I think that we have destructive tendencies, to self and others. We also have the opposition between love and hate, but, hopefully most people don't swing to the full expression of hate. As many on this site are probably aware, I am influenced strongly by the ideas of Carl Jung and do believe that integrating the 'shadow' side is the ideal. I am certainly aware of my own shadow and try to work with it, but I don't think integration of the shadow is particularly easy. Of course, some people may have bigger shadows than others, or more particular obstacles in their life journeys than others. But, I think that it is best to go beyond blaming our circumstances and try to find the best balances possible.

Actually, I think that I had probably edited my own post before it was criticised, or at least before I read the post you wrote, although it probably doesn't matter that much. I realised that it was a stupid thing to write about my mobile battery running out, because it is simply an everyday nuisance.

But, I think that what I had not addressed in my thread introduction is what we consider to be evil, and we probably all think of it differently. In some ways, death may be viewed as an evil, but I am don't think that is definitive and, in many ways, extreme suffering may be worse. Probably, my own way of thinking about evil is based on atrocities, such as the way people were killed by Nazis in concentration camps or, the potential destruction of humanity through warfare or ecological devastation. For me, they seem to be the most extreme forms of evil possible. But, obviously, events in our own lives do matter and I think that these include loss of others through death, homelessness, severe injuries or blindness, but of course, we may see so many aspects of experience as devastating.

As to whether good and evil are forces, you are right to query, 'What or who is doing the forcing?' It is our own binary thinking that is constructing the division, and there is certainly some relativity. What may be viewed as an 'evil' may be later viewed very differently because many events which are seen as 'terrible' at the time may be a trigger for positive developments.

I am aware that my own thinking is tinged with my Catholic upbringing, but a lot ideas about good and evil, and its metaphysics, emerged in that context. We could say that 'The Book of Job' was addressing the problem. But, outside of Christianity, there is the idea of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism. Some interpretations of this see events as being 'punishment', but an alternative is to see it as being learning experiences. The idea is primarily the idea of cause and effect, or 'you reap as you sow. I have some familiarity with Taoism, but have not, at this stage, read as deeply on this tradition as I would like to.

But, I definitely believe that we need to face up to evil within ourselves, rather than blaming others, as @Joshs points out. But, I am not thinking as that involving beating oneself up over things because that most certainly doesn't help at all. I believe that the best ideal is to be able to process the 'evil' aspects of life, in order to become the most positive we can be for our wellbeing and others. Personally, I am having a day indoors to restore my own 'psychological batteries' because I do think that we need time to process experiences rather than becoming overwhelmed by them.

I think that your understanding of evil is really worth thinking about because it does seem to me that in so much of life we identify evil and put blame onto others. I think that acknowledging aspects of oneself is extremely important and facing guilt rather than simply projecting it. I believe that this applies to moral evil, but also, is useful for thinking about suffering. We probably need to accept it for what it is rather than trying to put the blame on anyone or even try to attribute it to any external power.

I haven't read any writing by Hannah Arendt, but I think it I may have a downloaded book by her, so I will try to have a read of it.

I have only looked briefly at the responses on the phone since getting home , including yours, and will look at them more fully tomorrow. However, I just looked at your post which provides a link to Van Gogh and his severed ear. This makes me wonder about the whole nature of self destructive tendencies as part of human nature. Of course, the experiences of his were unique in many ways, but it does lead me to wonder about the origins of the destructive impulses.

I am extremely interested in the psychoanalytic aspects of this, but I am not sure that it is limited there and may go beyond the psychological. It may go back to inherent principles and these may be reflected as aspects of human nature. I am wondering if there are any metaphysical aspects behind it, even if our own awareness of these aspects of life are extremely limited. I think that the whole question of natural evil and moral evil, and how they are linked, opens up so many questions, even if these aspects of life are disguised, or extremely ambiguous.

I am replying to you because you enquired about the meaning of my battery running out in Wimbledon and also know that my mother is ill. Apart from being out in Wimbledon, as the womble of this site, and having to wait until I get home until I can charge up my phone, I think that my psychological batteries had probably run out too.

If my thread discussion did appear a bit obscure it probably comes in the context of my mother being ill and awaiting tests, for which both I and her are fearful. I am struggling with how to help her cope with any bad news and that is what got me thinking about how we frame 'evil'. My mother does see life in terms of God, but does still struggle with how to view the 'evil' of suffering. I see this in a wider context but can see problems with any view of life which traces back suffering to our failings. But, I do believe that how we understand the forces of good and evil is not dependent on a religious perspective.

Of course, our experiences of 'good' and 'evil' are related to the way in which we define them, but I think that the experience of suffering is central. I think that independently of whether we believe in any underlying divine force, we are still left with the quandary of whether there are any inherent principles of good and evil in the universe, even though these ideas are inevitably related to how we perceive good and evil in our own lives. Human ideas of these concepts are restricted to understanding, but we can ask whether they have any basis in any aspects of principles beyond the realm of our own thinking.

I think that my problem goes back to theology but I am trying to think outside of that. My own views are related to Jung's psychology of the shadow but also I question in the widest possible way, in relation to the suffering of human beings and other lifeforms.

However, I am in Wimbledon and my phone battery may run out any moment, so I may not be able to discuss any further until I can charge my battery.

Interesting, and I am inclined to think that a disregard for life may incorporate the lives of others alongside our own, but I do think that this split is an important one.

I definitely think that aspects of behaviour have a root in the psychology of a person, including sadism. However, I do believe that to think of evil and good simply in this way rules out ideas of the a priori principles of Kant or Plato's ideas of forms. I am not saying that I see it simply as they do, or I would not be writing a thread, but I do think that it is likely that good and evil go beyond our own psychologies.

Okay, I will look at the link which you have provided to a thread previous to my time on the site, and anyone else can throw in any new ideas which they may have.

I like your art on physics and your images of so many ladies probably point to the importance of the feminine principle as an essential aspect of existence.

Also, in the post previous to that, in which you speak of the reality within a grain of sand, you refer to William Blake. I think that he is such an important thinker and he created so much of a philosophy, in his thoughts about innocence and experience, and especially in 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.'

But, I do think that poetry, e is such an important aspect of thought. While I was a student I got to know a fairly well known poet in England, called U A Fanthorpe. Unfortunately, she is not living now, but I met her in the context that I was doing illustrations for a college magazine. At the time, I was struggling with the philosophy of Kant, and through knowing this poet, I became aware of the limits of reason, and how the arts, and poesis, are extremely important aspect in the scheme of human knowledge.

Thanks, and life can be so difficult at times, throwing us into all kinds of philosophy conundrums. I plan to have some interaction on this site, even while my mother is ill and in hospital, although it is lower on my priorities.
I do believe though, that the harshest lessons in life are probably the ones which give us the most scope for learning. I am not sure that life is meant to be easy at all, aside from any particular viewpoint which we may choose to adopt, to make sense of it all. But, I realise that it is a matter of perspective entirely and how the abstract entity known as the self is present as an essential factor in any such interpretation of life experience. This also is related to how we view the importance of self in relation to any larger cosmic order.

As regards to the self, I also believe that we need a certain amount of sense of humour and need to try not to take our own selves too seriously. My own funniest dream , a couple of weeks ago, was one in which I saw all my own threads on this site, lying as long pieces of curled up pieces of paper on the floor, next to my bed, almost like scrolls.

Thanks for your entry, and I am just letting you and others know that I am really taking a bit of time out because my mum is in hospital. However, I can't go to visit her daily due to Covid_19 restrictions. So, I am logging onto the site but will probably have much less participation for a while. But, I am continuing to read the replies on the threads and I am glad that the thread is still going for any people who are still interested.

Thanks for all your fantastic contributions. I downloaded your documents and will read them properly today. I am still reading your own book on the Bible. I was also very impressed by your poem on the mystery of existence.

My own view of postmodernism is connected to sociology. In particular, I knew someone who thought of gender as being socially constructed. I thought how useful this was at the time . But, I also see the biological dimensions of gender. So, it may be about various lens, and how we explore and experiment with them until we find those which are both most accurate and helpful for our thinking.

I can accept what you are saying and we are indeed so different. Obviously, our philosophies are connected to our basic sense of self, but it does possibly show how our own psychologies come into play in our thinking. Each of us comes with a subjective life, and this is involved and evolves during our engagement with others, as well as our being the starting point for the development of our construction of philosophies about everything in life. We cannot really escape the self while we are alive.

I think that postmodernism definitely was important as a movement and it lead to a way of analysing meanings, especially in connection with the social construction of many aspects of reality. It aided in thinking about so many fabricated constructs, but, perhaps it went a bit too far, and may have given rise to the perspective where everything is reduced to mere social constructs. This may have lead to the possibility of post truth, and a whole agenda in which nothing can be taken for granted at all. So, in thinking about postmodernism, perhaps we need to think about what was helpful, or unhelpful, and where do we go from here?