Should Psychologists Use the Term "Evil"?

Robert Furey reviews Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver's book The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil. Should psychologists even approach the topic of morality using terms like "evil"? Should we not examine the causes, moderators, mediators, and consequences of positive behaviors (such as altruism, providing social support) and negative behaviors (such as harassment, bullying, theft, infidelity, violence) without labels such as "evil"? Doesn't the use of terms such as "evil" ignore, to use Furey's phrasing, "the depth, complexity, and importance of moral psychology"?

Read the Review

The Good, the Bad, and the Bystanders
By Robert Furey
      PsycCRITIQUES, 2012 Vol 57(6)

Comments

[Michael Donahue]

Should psychologists use the term evil? Certainly Scott Peck thought we should (People of the Lie). The term is used infrequently for the most part, but it is not difficult to point to specific instances (e.g., the Wannsee Conference, torture murders, etc). Most importantly, people experience evil in their lives and chose to express themselves that way.

[Cormack McKinney]

I certainly don't think that Psychologists should be afraid of the term "evil". I think that the idea of evil is a fundamentally human experience and part of mankind's narrative. Of course, I don't mean to say that any human being is evil, but that it does exist in the world and should be acknowledged. It seems to me that to present a psychology that sidesteps or ignores the existence of evil is to present a watered-down version of psychology, of ethics, and of the human experience.

[Jeanne Morrow]

The word evil, being non-professional in any context, seems inappropriate when referencing (verbal or written) as a psychology professional. Further, it is a subjective term, some believing in it, others not. Thus, it appears to serve nothing more than as an inflammatory word. Best to utilize semantics 'profession-appropriate'.

[Cormack McKinney]

That is interesting, and I can see how this would be especially true when using the term descriptively and not as a subject in and of itself. It seems, however, that there may be a double standard of sorts. In therapy, Psychologists sometimes use the word "good" without appearing unprofessional, and there does not appear to be any movement to avoid the word--yet it is just as subjective as the term "evil". I can understand the avoidance of both words in the "hard sciences", but if there is any field in which such a powerful would could be used, I would think that the field of Psychology would be at the top of the list.

This is why I suspect there is a different reason for labeling the term "unprofessional"--a reason more akin to the reason society avoids "death". It is as though there is some great fear or desire to avoid it and live as though it does not exist. As a kind of phenomenologist and one who values existential psychotherapy as much as I do psychodynamic and cognitive psychotherapy, I would argue that - like the idea of death - the idea of evil is better addressed in some cases than avoided (and only if it is introduced first by the client).