I concede you are right.

At every stage as we progress towards infinity, the earthly suffering we experienced leaves an (increasingly infinitesimal) dent in our net-happiness, that will never completely go away.

The end result is the ultimate consequence.

I should have noticed sooner, but my argument only works from a consequentialist point of view.

If good and bad can only be judged by the end result, the suffering is not actually bad.

If the suffering is not bad, this is perfectly compatible with an omnibenevolent unlimited god.

You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What about the opposite? What if you add the eternity of evil in the afterlife to any finit good?
(BTW, I don't know of any kind of evidence for an eternity of good. Do you?) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I don't think any finite offences deserve infinite suffering, and non-human animals are not supposed to go to heaven, so all of their sufferings won't be made up for. Wild animal suffering is supposed to be particularly bad with the animals getting ravaged by disease, ripped apart by predators, trapped and dying of thirst, and obviously the roughly 160 million animals per day taken to slaughterhouses are not having a picnic either.

No, I'm not convinced either way on a god or afterlife and it would take something significant to shift me from agnosticism. Considering the evils aforesaid, I think if a god does exist it would have to be uncaring.

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — Down The Rabbit Hole

Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action. — InPitzotl

No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. God's actions brought about the consequences.

It means it's no surprise that you insist The Problem of Evil is (as a matter of fact) a problem as opposed to leaving it more humbly as an argument that there is a problem. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What are you talking about? The argument that there is a problem is the problem of evil. — InPitzotl

Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here:

What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means. — InPitzotl

Incidentally, if there's a definition of humility, I'm pretty sure it applies no more to the random internet guy that solved a 2000+ year old problem by not solving it — InPitzotl

You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists.

The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Right and wrong here are moral judgments. And consequentialism generally works by judging an action as being good if it results in more benefit than harm; or bad if it results in more harm than benefit. — InPitzotl

Correct. So if our existence "results in more benefit than harm" that's good, not bad, and if it results in infinitely more benefit than harm, it is infinitely good. In either case there is no bad for an omnibenevolent god to care about.

If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That does not follow. In fact, the very fact that harm is compared to benefit in consequentialism is a recognition that harm is bad and benefit is good. — InPitzotl

No, things can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the consequences. If the consequences are not bad, neither are the things leading to them.

The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're advancing severe misunderstandings of consequentialism. — InPitzotl

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence).

It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

...if we applied this criteria to humans, nobody would ever accept it. A serial killer who kills 30 people, who works as a doctor to save 50 people, we would judge as a person who does bad things. We would be insane to call such a guy omnibenevolent. Nevertheless, overall, this person saved a net 20 lives. Your argument, however, demands I recognize those 30 murders as not being bad given that a net 20 lives were saved. This is an absurd argument. — InPitzotl

AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting.

There's a mismatch here. To advocate is to recommend or support a position. The Problem of Evil is a problem, not a position. — InPitzotl

Says you, a proponent of The Problem of Evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's meaningless. — InPitzotl

It means it's no surprise that you insist The Problem of Evil is (as a matter of fact) a problem as opposed to leaving it more humbly as an argument that there is a problem.

Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's a fair definition. But look at it. Consequentialism is defined as a position on the morality of actions; i.e., it is dealing with moral good and moral evils. — InPitzotl

The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process.

If God is a consequentialist, the broken eggs won't be bad, the omelettes are all that can be good or bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Wrong. Consequentialism would be judging the morality of an action, not a product. The action would be making an omelette. Methinks you're confusing moral evils with natural evils or "benefit" or something. (Incidentally, the problem of evil applies to both moral and natural evils).

Metaphorically, breaking eggs would be called a harm in consequentialist analysis. Producing an omelette would be a benefit. And there's still a question of why there needs to be any harm at all, which you are completely dodging. An all powerful being need not break eggs to make an omelette. So why do any eggs ever get broken? That's the problem of evil, and that's the question you're dodging, not answering. — InPitzotl

The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad.

No, the exact disagreement we have is whether or not you solved the problem of evil. "Good" and "bad", being just words, can be redefined to be anything you like, but defining away a problem is not solving it. — InPitzotl

The fact we disagree on what should be labelled good and bad, for example due to our different moral foundations, goes to my point that we shouldn't presume what God would deem good and bad.

Yes, those that advocate The Problem of Evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

There's a mismatch here. To advocate is to recommend or support a position. The Problem of Evil is a problem, not a position. — InPitzotl

Says you, a proponent of The Problem of Evil.

Maybe god is a consequentialist, that only cares about the result. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not equivalent to what you're proposing, but it doesn't work either. If God's just breaking eggs to make omelettes, the problem would be why it would be necessary to break eggs. If God doesn't care about the broken eggs, God's not omnibenevolent. If God has to break the eggs to make the omelette, God's not omnipotent. — InPitzotl

Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". If God is a consequentialist, the broken eggs won't be bad, the omelettes are all that can be good or bad.

Maybe that's what it boils down to: you think things are bad, even if the consequences are not? Maybe it's my consequentialism clashing with your moral principles? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Obviously not; see above. Maybe you're just wrong? — InPitzotl

That's the exact disagreement we have been having: whether good or bad only apply to the consequences. I'm saying they do, you're saying they don't.

I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means. — InPitzotl

Yes, those that advocate The Problem of Evil.

If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, it doesn't matter. Assume infinite puppy births, but one puppy murder. Why was there a puppy murder? If the gods allowed it, they are not omnibenevolent. If the gods couldn't prevent it, they are not omnipotent. If the gods didn't know, they are not omniscient. Note that the infinite puppy birth assumption here is completely irrelevant to the problem. — InPitzotl

Your example of puppy births is not fair, as it suggests some gain at the expense of another. This is not the case when all those experiencing the afterlife are infinitely benefiting.

In the grand scheme of things none of it is really bad or evil as people are not left worse off. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, in your OP you explicitly have a mathematical model of how this works. Translating your above claim into its mathematical analog, you're trying to pitch to me that in the infinite sum, none of the terms are really negative, as the sum is positive. I find that mathematical translation dubious. So if your claim doesn't work in your own analog, why should anyone be compelled to agree with it? — InPitzotl

What I am saying is that an omnibenevolent being may not care about whether a particular instance should be labelled as "bad" if overall nobody experiences net-suffering. Maybe god is a consequentialist, that only cares about the result.

To be honest, neither of us really knows if an all-good god would care about technical "evils". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Sorry, I don't see the honesty you're referring to. If a being has the power to prevent evil, but does not exercise that power, said being is ipso facto, definitionally, disqualified from holding the label omnibenevolent.

From my perspective, you're asking me to simultaneously forgo all qualifications I hold for the label omnibenevolent, and to apply that term anyway to a god for some reason. That ask is a non-starter. As for addressing the problem of evil, this is more reminiscent of just pretending there isn't a problem than solving one. — InPitzotl

Maybe that's what it boils down to: you think things are bad, even if the consequences are not? Maybe it's my consequentialism clashing with your moral principles?

I think where we disagree is you would call things bad or evil even if the subjects that experience them are not left worse off in the grand scheme of things? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Almost. It's not quite a matter of what I personally would consider bad or evil; this is more what the problem is. The whole point of the problem of evil is to resolve why there are evils in the world at all, given that this is evident, and given that there's a being alleged to have the three omni's. — InPitzotl

I think the Problem of Evil persists, bearing in mind the flipside - the eternal suffering in hell (which is never just punishment for finite offences), and also non-human animals that will not experience the eternal good of heaven to make up for their suffering; and many non-human animals have horrendous lives.

My OP is not meant to completely rebut The Problem of Evil, but just provide an answer to what I think is its strength. I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off, thus The Problem of Evil is more a technical problem, which I think such defences as the Free Will Defence will have a much easier job in dealing with. I realise very few people will agree with me that the horrifying "evils" of life would be made up for, and that's what I wanted to address.

Analogously here, evil is negative. Good is positive. The sum is positive, and that's what you're arguing. But to say that the 157 here isn't evil is analogous to saying that the term there is positive, because the sum is infinite. That makes no sense to me; what gives? Even in your form, those 157 thingies are surely things that have to be made up for, right? Given this model, is this not correct?:

-157 + 156 = -1 = slight evil
-157 + 157 = 0 = neutral
-157 + 158 = 1 = slight good

I don't see how you can say that the evil is "made up for" and also that the evil "doesn't exist", and claim that you're using logic and math here. — InPitzotl

In the grand scheme of things none of it is really bad or evil as people are not left worse off. The negative numbers are needed for the math (to show the conclusion that none of the subjects would be worse off), and I use the terms "bad" and "evil" in the same spirit.

To be honest, neither of us really knows if an all-good god would care about technical "evils". Maybe it would have more sense than that?

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying - that even if the bad is made up for, it still technically exists?

I think where we disagree is you would call things bad or evil even if the subjects that experience them are not left worse off in the grand scheme of things?

This is what I mean by practical badness, badness that leaves the subjects that experience it worse off, as opposed to technical badness, a "badness" that is made up for.

If you suffer 1 year and are happy for 9 years, then you have 10% suffering.

If you suffer for 1 year and are happy for 99 years, then you have 1% suffering.

If you suffer for 1 year and are happy for 999 years, then you have 0.1% suffering.

It never becomes 0, only in the limit.

But if you have never suffered, it is always 0%. — SolarWind

My case is built upon the premise that the good can make up for the "bad". The suffering for all intents and purposes will not exist.

That is because you are not an omnibenevolent being. An all benevolent and omniscient being would not round the numbers. Zero evil is the only thing an all benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being could tolerate.

The only way the problem of evil makes sense is if God is limited in some way. — Philosophim

My case is built upon the premise that the good will infinitely make up for the "bad". Thus the "bad" won't really be bad for those experiencing it.

Are you saying the good cannot make up for the bad? Or are you making the same point as @InPitzotl that even if the "bad" can be made up for it still technically exists?

This infinity is never reached because it is only a potential infinity. We cannot be in the moment of "infinity" and therefore never have experienced infinite happiness. — SolarWind

All that matters is the good goes on forever.

And it's absurd. An all truthful being apparently can tell lies using this formula. An all spotless being can have spots. An all x being can have arbitrarily large non-x. No mathematician would accept this. All x doesn't mean an infinite amount of x; it means there is no non-x.

We don't have logic and math here supporting your theory; we simply have a confused poster distracting himself with a sum into thinking that things he concede exists don't. If Johnny has four apples, and you give him an infinite number of oranges, Johnny still has four apples. — InPitzotl

You are effectively saying things are intrinsically bad. I think when most people give standard examples of The Problem of Evil, they are talking about the practical badness as opposed to a technical "badness".

It is similar to Pascal's Wager as far as the impact of adding infinities.

For the math to get you there you do first have to accept that "good" can make up for the "bad". I gave the example of a good life making up for the hard work in getting there, and hypothetical examples can demonstrate this even better, such as millions of pounds making up for a pinch on the arm.

Once it is accepted that the "good" can make up for the "bad" it's just about getting enough "good" to make up for the "bad" of life. Infinity will always do the job.

The afterlife is a potential infinite, as it progresses towards infinity rather than the infinity actually existing.

There Is a God by Antony Flew

If you have a sum of positive and negative numbers and you change the negative numbers to zero, the sum grows. Simple mathematics. — SolarWind

Grows to more than infinity?

-10 + infinite good = infinite good
-157 + infinite good = infinite good
-258958 + infinite good = infinite good
-999999999999999 + infinite good = ..... — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am of the opinion that untreated leukemia in children, as an example, leading to excruciatingly painful deaths for what are clearly innocent people to all people of right mind simply does not make sense in a world where there is a God who can stop that from happening, even if there's a cookie at the end of the pain. — Moliere

It does seem intuitive that a good-god would not allow this, but the logic and math show otherwise.

As long as you accept that good can make up for the bad, for example a better life can make up for all the hard work in getting there, it's just a question of how much, and the infinite good of the afterlife will always make up for any finite suffering.

Why have "bad" (not really bad if infinitely made up for) at all? The religions have a multitude of answers, from god testing our faith to it being a consequence of free will. If these reasons fail, an all-loving god has to pick or allow either (a) no finite bad to be cancelled out by the good (b) finite bad that is cancelled out by the good, and as there is no reason to prefer "a" or "b", god acts completely reasonably in picking at random or letting what will be, be. — Down The Rabbit Hole

If you take (b) and delete the bad you get (b+), which is better than (b), thus God could never choose (b). — SolarWind

Why is "b+" better than "b"?

You accept that good can make up for the bad? — Down The Rabbit Hole

That is the very thing I am disagreeing with. — Moliere

A better life can't make up for all the hard work in getting there?

Bit inductive. How much good can you really do during a 100 billion year heat death followed by hawking radiation. By the exact same logic infinite/long infinity = 0 meaning God doesn't exist according to your system. I mean technically .000...001 — Cheshire

God and heaven exists outside of this universe, so they say.

Yes but what bothers me is why this particular arrangement?

I understand your point: finite evil but infinite good. :sweat:

Why not, No evil but finite good? :grin: — TheMadFool

The arbitrariness of it?

Your proposed alternative "No evil but finite good" is explained away by the all-loving god wanting what's best for us, and a net infinite good is better than a net finite good.

Why have "bad" (not really bad if infinitely made up for) at all? The religions have a multitude of answers, from god testing our faith to it being a consequence of free will. If these reasons fail, an all-loving god has to pick or allow either (a) no finite bad to be cancelled out by the good (b) finite bad that is cancelled out by the good, and as there is no reason to prefer "a" or "b", god acts completely reasonably in picking at random or letting what will be, be.

You accept that good can make up for the bad? In the case of the eternal good of the afterlife, infinitely so?

I don't think we can call things evil if overall they are not a bad thing.

I think philosophical pessimism is a rational response to the horrors of reality.

Nihilism, the view that nothing matters, can't be correct if there are bad things (e.g. pain and suffering). Thus either nihilism is true, or philosophical pessimism, but not both.

I don't quite see the difference in saying the evil will not have existed "for all practical purposes" and conceding that the being is merely "for all practical purposes" omnibenevolent (aka, isn't omnibenevolent). — InPitzotl

I said that "harm" will not have existed for all practical purposes. I wouldn't call things evil if they have no practical application.

Is your argument effectively the same as @InPitzotl's?

The incompatibility is based on the notion that an omnibenevolent being would not allow the harm — InPitzotl

I think it's perfectly benevolent to allow harm that for all practical purposes will not have existed. The subject of the harm will have the same net experience as those that would not have been subjected to any harm.

So you're saying that (1) even though the evil would be made up for with the infinite good of the afterlife, the evil still existed (2) which is incompatible with an all-powerful all-loving god?

I don't think 2 follows from 1.

Good points, but makes a stronger case for AN arguments — schopenhauer1

If one believes no amount of good can make up for the bad. What arguments are left for natalism?

you are operating on a finite amount of evil. Why?

Also, why an infinite amount of good?

Lastly, why is evil a problem? Why not the problem with good?

There is no dark without light, nor light without dark. The contrast is what creates the assignment of value. — Book273

It is a common argument that an all-loving all-powerful god is not compatible with the evils we find in the world e.g. people ravaged by disease, people beaten and tortured. These experiences are limited (finite) in intensity and duration.

The problem of evil still remains in my view, bearing in mind the eternal suffering in hell can never be just, and animals that experience suffering that can never be made up for in the afterlife. The OP just provides an answer to the common examples of The Problem of Evil.

The eternal (infinite) good exists in the afterlife according to the holy texts of the primary religions. I don't believe in the afterlife, but it would not be fair to use the common examples of The Problem of Evil as evidence against an all-loving all-powerful god when they are always infinitely made up for.

I don't think my argument requires the view that evil is a problem over good. In any event, it is my subjective view that evil is a problem, and good is not, and it is almost everybody's subjective view.

If that puppy that burned in a house received an eternity of bliss would this make up for it? If your answer is no, is this because the suffering it experienced burning it the house would still have happened, it cannot be erased?

How many puppy births undoes a puppy murder? — InPitzotl

Again, not comparable, as I am talking about individuals experiencing good that outweighs their bad, and not individuals experiencing good that outweighs other's bad.

As I have discussed with @khaled good can more than make up for the bad. In the case of the eternal good of the afterlife, infinitely so.

what do you consider infinite good ? — Hello Human

For me good would be positive subjective experience such as happiness, pleasure etc. And the evil would be negative subjective experience such as pain, suffering, and even boredom and discomfort.

If there are people in Hell for an eternity wouldn’t that be infinite evil ? — Hello Human

What about the infinite evil of putting people in hell? — khaled

Yes, this was my answer to the Arguments Against God thread: "How can a good god condemn people to infinite suffering in hell for finite offence/s. Infinite punishment will always exceed just punishment for finite offence/s".

And besides, if God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be any negative numbers at all. — khaled

I take it you agree with the principle that good can more than make up for the bad? For example getting surgery, competing in a boxing match, working hard - you get the picture.

Do you not agree that no matter how much finite suffering you experience, the eternal good of the afterlife will not only always make up for it, it will make up for it to the same degree as if you experienced no finite suffering. You will always experience a net infinite good.

Your example is not comparable as the black marble does not have an inverse relationship to the white marbles. A proper example would be, a finite amount of fire however large will always be put out by an infinite amount of water.

The finite evil (fire) in the world will always be put out by the eternal good (water) in the afterlife.

That your children are likely to have a good life and/or you are going to bring them up to make the world a better place.

The only problem I have with this is that your children could have children, that have children, that have children, et cetera. You can't expect all of these future generations to have a good life, and some may have horrific lives. And as far as making the world a better place, the evidence shows introducing generations more people to be doing exactly the opposite.

But, what if the boss has special needs also and he’s also unaware that he is exploiting the worker? — TheHedoMinimalist

I don't see any mechanism for that changing the wrongness of his actions. It would obviously change the boss's culpability though.

As you were saying: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/02/youtube-suspends-sky-news-australia-videos-denying-covid-19-existence

It seems wrong to take advantage of someone (they don't have the awareness to realise they are being taken advantage of). If we tested that with a reductio, say the worker being taken advantage of had special needs.

Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides. — Xtrix

Yes, you are right. Arguably what Corbyn should have done is remove the whip from those attacking him, as it is a breach of the party's rules to bring the party into disrepute, and selected fresh candidates to stand at the General Election. I guess he calculated this would do more harm than good, but at least he would have had MPs that would vote through his policies if he had won.

Is it possible that we are the first once that arrived? — SteveMinjares

Considering that which has given rise to everything else has to be infinite in duration, and anything that can happen in an infinite duration probably will, life is just as likely to be a 1 in a googolplex years occurrence. We have no reason to believe other life spawns exist/will exist in this universe, unless biology can show it can spawn relatively easily.

Is Sky News one of the main news stations in Australia? For a while YouTube was recommending clips of it to me, and it was just like Fox News. UK's Sky News is pretty balanced, probably due to broadcasting rules.

Cycles of Time - Sir Roger Penrose

Well, the fact that one guy is "principled", doesn't really show that a party, government, or state is not motivated by the desire to acquire or maintain power. — Apollodorus

It shows that a state can be principled. That one guy, if Prime Minister, picks the rest of the government, and institutions of a state.

Certainly as far as parties are concerned, politics seems to be about power regardless of political orientation. That's why they put so much effort and money into winning elections. — Apollodorus

The trouble is, to put your principles into practice you must win power. Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character.

What you are saying seems to refer more to particular political parties and the position of individual politicians within those parties.

By state I meant more the organizational superstructure consisting of executive, legislature, judiciary, armed and police forces, etc., i.e. the thing that stays in place whilst governments or ruling parties keep coming and going. — Apollodorus

All of those players are picked either directly or indirectly by the executive and legislature, at least here in the UK.

Yes, but it doesn’t follow that the state has no desire to stay in power. — Apollodorus

Correct, I was just saying it's not fair to say desire to stay in power is its main priority when there are sometimes principled people that stand for office.

In the Brexit example, Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum under pressure from the electorate and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

However, (1) he was under no obligation to do so, and (2) he agreed to a referendum because he thought that the Remain camp would win. — Apollodorus

Yes, although weaker than the examples I gave, this is another example of the government acting on the will of the people. The government could have done nothing about the political pressure.

Corbyn is a different matter. There is no way telling what he would have done if elected. He operated in tandem with trade union leader Len McCluskey, an old-style Marxist who may have chosen to go for Remain.

In the event, Labour’s Marxist left wing was ousted by the Fabian Socialist right wing that was pro-EU and pro-Remain. And that was the end of Corbyn’s left-wing takeover. — Apollodorus

C'mon, decades of voting against his own party and government, sacrificing his career, he was bound to be a PM guided by his principles.

There is a stark contrast between the 2017 General Election where May lost her majority and the 2019 General Election where Boris got a historic result, destroying the red wall. The history surrounding this shows it was about Brexit.

This being said, the majority of Corbyn's MPs voting no confidence in him and attacking him in the media for years all the way up to the elections certainly helped the government. I think he could of won the 2017 GE if not for his own parliamentary party working against him, I remember seeing an article that just a few thousand votes in some swing seats and he would have been Prime Minister. Some of those in his own party that smashed him in the media, were later made Lords by the government.

The state can get away with evils you or I or a corporation or a church cannot. They can plunder your wealth, skim off every purchase, break into your home, steal your property, and imprison you. The lesser evils, the everyday slights, denials, red tapes, wage garnishing, ticket-giving, are just facts of life now. — NOS4A2

Yes, and if you sue them for breaking their own rules, they can use your money taken under threat of force to outspend you to save face, and/or carry on with unsavoury policy. The majority are okay as they have the power to un-elect them, but it's the minorities that suffer in a democracy.

I even heard the other day that the United State's legal costs in their case against Julian Assange are being subsidized by the UK taxpayer. The corporations and church would have to pay out of their own pocket.

Even if Jesus Christ took power, none of those evils would dissipate. — NOS4A2

No, government isn't intrinsically bad; if you have people with the right principles at the helm, the country would be a better place than without government.

Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. — Apollodorus

This isn't necessarily true. Looking at Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary record going back decades he has a history of voting against his own party, even when they were in government, at the sacrifice of his own career, reaching his first position in government/shadow government only after decades of being an MP and being voted in by party members as leader after a rule change gave them the power. If he had won the election, and become Prime Minister, his priority would have been to put his principles into practise.

So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent? — Apollodorus

The people have the greatest influence over the state.

In the UK people tend to vote for the party of business, so the desires of corporations and the people are in alignment. What's interesting is when there's a clash between the desires of business and the people.

During the UK's Brexit Referendum, business were overwhelmingly in favour of staying an EU member to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, and the people voted to leave the EU. When the previous Prime Minister Theresa May proposed a Brexit deal that would have kept many ties with EU to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, she went into a General Election and lost her parliamentary majority, and went on to resign as Prime Minister. The exact day May resigned Boris gave a speech stating that we would leave "deal or no deal", and he was subsequently elected as Prime Minister, and went on to win a General Election with a humongous majority giving the Labour party its worse result since 1935. The bulk of Boris's gains were the "red-wall" - the working class that voted Brexit.