Beyond-good-and-evil thought usually abandons good while keeping evil as a category

Evidence

I think it was Lacan who remarked that when we talk about going beyond good and evil, we usually mean going beyond good. The modern world is fascinated by anti-heroes, people with a dark side, the pantomime madness and “evil” of Hannibal Lecter. What it is less comfortable with is the real atheist-existentialist revelation that “good” and “evil” are not written into the universe, but exist only in ourselves, in relation to our desires and interests. Soap opera melodrama keeps us believing in “evil” as a voluntaristic choice — people do bad things because they are evil. But in Breaking Bad, evil in that sense is nowhere to be found. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 701

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Opposites like good and evil are relative contrasts within an absolute whole — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 915; Theory’s proper object is evil and suppression, not the good; Ethical difficulty beyond good and evil can itself engineer new enjoyment — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 994 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Opposites like good and evil are relative contrasts within an absolute whole #complicates (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 915
• Theory’s proper object is evil and suppression, not the good #expands (0.75)
• Ethical difficulty beyond good and evil can itself engineer new enjoyment #exemplifies (0.75) — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 994
• Negativity lies in repelling evil rather than pursuing positive aims #qualifies (0.72) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1225