“Diagnosis: Evil - In Clinical Settings”
This .pdf document contains the course materials you must read.
Simply keep scrolling down and read every page. To receive CEU credit after reading this file,
please follow the directions at the end of the course.
Peachtree is approved to provide continuing education services by the National Association of Alcohol
and Drug Addiction Counselors (NAADAC) and the National Board of Certified Counselors (NBCC), as
well as by many individual state regulatory boards for most mental health related professionals,
including:
NAADAC # 205
California BBS PCE #1852
Texas LMFT #181
Texas SW #CS1048
Kansas KBSRB #03-001
NBCC # 5701
California Nursing #14780
Texas LPC #444
Florida SW, MHC, MFT BAP #723
Oklahoma SW CEP #2011-0001
Please see www.fastceus.com/approvals.php for a complete state-by-state and discipline
listing of all our Board CEU Provider Approvals, or contact your Board directly if you have course
credit approval questions.
We Have What You Need
e
h T re l
c
a
e
P
a
ssion
Profe ion, Inc.
at
Educ
PeachTree Professional Education, Inc.
Richard K. Nongard, LMFT/CCH
15560 N. Frank L. Wright Blvd, #B4-118
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Voice: (800) 390-9536
Fax: (888) 877-6020
www.FastCEUs.com
2
DIAGNOSIS: EVIL - IN CLINICAL SETTINGS
All materials copyright © Richard K. Nongard.
All rights reserved.
No portion of this course may be reproduced without specific written consent of the author.
Course Description:
Ever wonder if a client wasn't really mentally ill, or even ineffectual, but instead maybe
they were just plain evil? This course tackles human evil - not religious or moral evil - by
clearly defining identifying criteria including behaviors, motivations, loveless emotions and
malignant narcissistic personality traits.
Course Objectives:
At the conclusion of this course, the professional will be able to:
1) Evaluate diagnostic criteria for praxeological evil, vs. criteria for DSM mental
illnesses.
2) Explore the differences between 'evil', 'ineffectiveness' and 'mental illness'.
3) Discuss techniques for overcoming the challenges of evil in clinical settings.
4) Learn strategies for self-preservation when working with evil clients.
Purpose of this course:
The purpose of this CE course is to provide discussion of issues relevant to the
mental health counselor concerning clients who may seem at first to suffer from a mental
health condition, but who do not meet specific criteria; clients who have no excuse for
their generally destructive behaviors.
Course Outline:
Part 1: Course organization, Documentation and Introduction.
Part 2: Reading of the course materials (this document)
Part 3: Administration and Completion of the Evaluation of Learning
===========
6 Clock Hours / CE Credits
If you ever have any questions concerning this course, please do not hesitate to contact
PeachTree at (800) 390-9536.
Your instructor is Richard K. Nongard, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist,
Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist and a Certified Personal Fitness Trainer.
PeachTree Professional Education, Inc.
15560 N. Frank L. Wright Blvd, #B4-118
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Voice: (800) 390-9536
Fax: (888) 877-6020
www.FastCEUs.com
3
ABOUT
the
AUTHORS
Richard K. Nongard, the Director of PeachTree Professional Education, Inc, is a
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist and
a Certified Personal Fitness Trainer with degrees in both ministry and counseling.
A popular keynote presenter and conference speaker, Richard provides
accredited continuation education and advanced skills training to
psychotherapists, education professionals and criminal justice organizations
throughout the United States on subjects related to suicide, anxiety, depression,
personality disorders, addiction, violence and family health. Solving problems by
focusing on existing client strengths is the hallmark of his approach.
Paula Duncan Nongard, MA, Professional Relations Director for PeachTree, is
a mental health researcher, an accomplished author, and a freelance writer and
editor.
Peachtree Professional Education, Inc. provides approved continuing
education opportunities for mental health, criminal justice and education
professionals. Peachtree seminars and keynotes have been presented for some
of the largest organizations in the country, including the EB-ACA, the ACA,
numerous regional school districts and university continuing education
departments, state and private hospitals, and criminal justice divisions.
www.FastCEUs.com
4
OTHER
PUBLICATIONS
www.FastCEUs.com
Paperbacks
• Taking Control of Destructive Personality Traits Understanding the Perfect-Victim Factor
• 11 Solutions to Counseling Highly Difficult Clients
• Nose Rings and Bellybutton Things, Counseling the Next Generation
• Crossing the Line - Psychosexual Disorders
• Inductions and Deepeners, Strategies for Effective Hypnosis
• Diagnosis: Evil - Identifying Those With No Excuse
Client Workbooks
• Getting Along - A Guide for Healthy Interactions
• In Control - Healthy Anger Expression
• Managing Stress and Anxiety
• The First Three Steps - Guided Recovery
• The Family Peace and Sanity Treaty
Professional Assessment / Screening Tools
• The NSAS: Nongard Substance Addiction Screening
• The NDI: Nongard Depression Index
• The NSRI: Nongard Strengths and Resources Inventory
• The NCCQ: Nongard Couples Conflict Questionnaire
Audio CDs
• Therapeutic Relaxation - Distress Tolerance Training
• Quit Smoking with Hypnosis
• Lose Weight with Hypnosis
• Fly Fear Free with Hypnosis
• Relaxation and Empowerment with Hypnosis
and Many More
Professional Resources
• Richard Nongard’s Crash Course in Profitable Therapy
- A Guidebook and Video for Success
• The QuitSuccess Tobacco Cessation Treatment Program
AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!
5
DIAGNOSIS
EVIL
IN
CLINICAL SETTINGS
A 6-Hour
Continuing Education Course
by Richard K. Nongard & Paula Duncan Nongard
All Contents Copyright © Richard K. Nongard
CASE NOTES:
This text contains many case representations, both public and private. Cases known to us
through the media have had no facts altered (except for the altered name of “John Durbin”,
since the information presented is a matter of public record. To protect confidentiality of nonpublic cases, this book uses several fictional examples.
The fictional accounts of Debbie Miller, Steve Foster and Rev. Larry Williams are simply
designed to provide understanding into the attributes and potential manifestations of the
praxeologically evil individual. These cases cannot, and should not be construed to be
representative of a single individual or client, and any likeness to known individuals is
unintentional and a matter of coincidence. Other than these three cases, all facts concerning
other cases are accurate to the best of our knowledge, based on media reports or other
information available at the time of publication.
6
PREFACE
"...There is nothing new under the sun..."
-- King Solomon
"A rose by any other name... is still a rose."
-- William Shakespeare
In 1997, the first edition of this book, Evil Stands Alone, was well received by mental health
professionals and laymen alike. Most professionals feel that they have encountered true evil at one
time or another in their careers, and the idea of exploring evil from a clinical perspective was
challenging and intriguing. Lay people, after reading it, were compelled to write and call me with their
stories of encounters with evil.
We wrote the book then because no one else had yet displayed the courage or audacity to formally
identify or label people as evil - to take away their excuses - to clarify and justify their identifying criteria
- and to put it all in print for the world to scrutinize.
Six years later, we have updated our work. Others are still thinking and supposing and discussing, and
we are again.
Our goal, then and now, is to provide a ‘reality check’ for society as a whole, and mental health
professionals in specific. The purpose: to illuminate the conviction that evil does exist, and to solidify
the explanation that some of the horrific experiences that some clients present in therapy may be due
to the presence of evil.
Many disturbing and devastating events have occurred in the world since the first book was published.
September 11th certainly highlighted the presence of evil in the form of terrorism against innocent
individuals. The anthrax killer, anonymously mailing his spores to innocent individuals throughout our
country, and the smiley face shooter and the beltway snipers - all serve to further underscore the
existence of human evil.
And while these incidents and the responsible persons are bold examples of evil without much debate,
and while they have certainly served as a wake-up call for society to accept the reality and presence of
evil in everyday life, these are still what we call “Geraldoish” examples of evil. These people made the
headlines of the newspaper. These events were carried on our 24-hour news networks. We, the
People, have repeatedly seen the ill-fated airplanes fly into the twin towers, and the slanted handwriting
on the anthrax envelopes. The physical evidence of evil has been made clear.
When, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush dared to label Iran, North Korea and Iraq
an ‘axis of evil’, many politicians cringed at such a blatant description. Nevertheless, in the hearts of
those who are not evil, his statement is perceived by most to be accurate, even though the picture it
draws may be harsh and politically uncomfortable.
When we talk about vicious killers like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson and call those individuals evil,
most people are not offended by the term or scared by its use.
These national, global or otherwise Geraldoish examples however, are generally the exception to the
7
rule of evil. When it rears its ugly head, evil is usually and intentionally far more destructive to specific
individuals, than to a society as a whole.
For something to exist or be real in our society, it must be pointedly identified. It must have a name, a label,
and a face. With identification solidly in play, eventually comes acceptance of reality.
Evil does exist. As a society we know it exists, and virtually every psychotherapist can relate to feeling its
impact either personally or professionally. But none in the field seems prepared or willing to stand up and
attach a label to the identifiable characteristics. The world of psychology has created over 400 diagnostic
labels to describe (and therefore, at times, excuse) human behavior. But to this point, the industry has carefully
avoided any moral implications in its work, by excluding evil from any category.
Evil is an exceptional state of being. Most clients presenting in therapy and most people in general are not evil.
But, in addition to the Geraldoish examples we see in the news, evil does permeate our society and is present,
at one level or another, in all of our lives - whether we have chosen to acknowledge it or not. This fact must
finally be recognized and accepted.
This book attempts to call a spade a spade, by identifying who is and who is not evil, and explaining why it is or
is not so. The premise is that some people do not have a psychological disorder to explain away their behavior.
Instead, some people, who society may call mentally ill, are just plain evil.
This text will often use the terms “praxeological evil” or “real evil” or even just “evil” to define the specific
condition or kind of evil we are here to discuss and dissect. These labels are to differentiate and divert
attention from what is considered “moral evil”, so that the totality of human evil can be exposed.
praxis noun
1. Practical application or exercise of a branch of learning.
2. Habitual or established practice; custom.
3. An example or form of exercise, or a collection of such examples,
for practice.
prax·e·ol·o·gy also prax·i·ol·o·gy
1. The study of human conduct.
prax·e·o·logi·cal adjective form
Praxeology is a word which defines the all-encompassing study of human behavior, reaching beyond
traditional understandings of morality or psychology.
Praxeological evil includes human motivations and emotions, not just judgments of right or wrong behavior.
The intent behind this labeling is to begin seeing evil from a new and all-inclusive perspective - one not limited
to habitual definitions, or justifications.
To simplify:
There are people who act or behave in certain ways which society considers inappropriate, unexplainable, or
unfathomable.
8
When this happens, we attach identifiable labels to them, such as sick, dysfunctional or crazy.
These labels function to simultaneously give society a relieving sense of understanding and/or forgiveness,
and the sick, dysfunctional, or spiritually misled an excuse, justifiable or not, for their behaviors.
The underlying assumption, which leads to the application of such labels, is that there must be something
involuntarily wrong with these people, or they would not behave the way that they do.
The label we apply offers a sense of “Ah ha!” understanding, and thus tells us how to respond when we
encounter such people and behaviors.
In identifying the praxeologically evil individual, we are removing the underlying assumption that there is
something involuntarily wrong with the person. By using the term 'praxeologically evil’, we are saying that the
identified person, with full knowledge, has proactively chosen to harm other individuals in a way that meets
their own malignantly narcissistic needs, and have done so as a continual life pattern.
A Word of Caution:
There is a strong, straightforward caution about the use and application of the term praxeological evil.
Although some of the discussion in this book has been framed in diagnostic language because it is
familiar to clinicians and some laypersons as well, this is a book of ideas, not of clinical diagnosis.
The goal of this text is to expand thinking in both the worlds of psychology and theology, and to begin
an intellectual debate on evil and its manifestations - extending beyond behavioral, moral, or
psychological attributes. Hopefully, those who read this treatise will build on the material, so that a
thorough understanding of evil and its presence can finally be discussed as a legitimate clinical issue.
As you read, you may uncover more questions than answers. This material is truly (still) a work in
progress. Every time we consider the topic of evil, we learn more. Ten years from now, new examples
will be up for discussion and evaluation, and by then we will have further understandings and ideas.
We will have seen and hopefully learned from the resolutions (positive or negative) to some of the
current evils we face.
If nothing else, the hope is for our readers to consider an area of profound significance that has not
yet been given adequate attention.
9
Chapter 1
Praxeological Evil
This book is about evil.
Evil behaviors.
Evil personalities.
Evil motivations.
Evil emotions.
This evil is pervasive and real.
This book has nothing to do with Satan, the devil or demons.
It has little to do with traditional understandings of evil, whether
religious or theological in nature.
This book is about people in your life.
Praxeological evil is not confined to an isolated event or a specific act. It is a pervasive state of being, and it’s
human.
Praxeological evil is very different from what we know as situational, moral or religious evil. This is not simply a
negative attitude against another person - this is the core essence and being of some individuals. This evil
encompasses a carefully defined — yet far reaching — set of observable co-existing human traits. We can
identify praxeological evil by its unique emotional, motivational, behavioral and personality characteristics.
Throughout this text, we will not focus on the attributes and actions of obvious evil throughout time, such as
Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Rather, we will explore the individual characteristics of
evil people who often fail to make the headlines. We will discuss individuals that may make a few clinicians
uncomfortable with our use of the word evil, such as some parents who have brought their children to therapy,
and some of our co-workers. We will explore the concept that certain individuals who may appear to be sick are perhaps evil. While such pointed labeling is often difficult to accept, it is nevertheless essential that we
begin recognizing and acknowledging that human evil does exist.
It is important to identify the distinctions between moral, situational evil, and praxeological evil, and to know
that the definition of praxeological evil used in this book is not intended to replace other understandings or
definitions of evil.
10
For example, we all have our own personal religious presuppositions and beliefs. We each believe certain
things from a theological or religious perspective to be true. We could therefore each say that if you believe
something different than what I believe, you may be a good person, but theologically, your beliefs are evil,
simply because they are different from mine, which of course are correct and true. This is not the type of evil
we are talking about.
From a moral perspective, to wrong another person may very well be evil. From a behavioral perspective, to
harm another person may be evil.
Have you ever harmed another person? Have you ever - ever - been selfish and wronged another individual?
Have you ever said something hurtful, knowing you would do damage before you spoke the words? Have you
ever stolen from another individual? Have you ever coveted another person’s possessions, or spouse?
The answer to these questions is probably yes. From a moral or behavioral perspective, all of us have certainly
done something wrong at one time or another.
Praxeological evil is not about occasionally doing something wrong or immoral, no matter the degree of
transgression. While it may be behaviorally evil, immoral, or even illegal to steal from another individual, we
would not apply the label of praxeological evil to most individuals who steal.
This does not mean that what they did was right, but simply that the label of praxeological evil is all
encompassing – applied not to someone for an isolated or specific action, but for who they are as a whole
person.
The intent of this concept is not to take away from our theological beliefs or to somehow label bad people as
good. Rather, it is to add a new, all-encompassing classification to our existing understanding of evil.
From where does evil come?
Although much debate and disagreement exists around such a question, we are all somewhat accustomed to
thinking about the religious aspects and origins of evil. Therefore, our basic understanding of what constitutes
evil (or inclination of what to look out for) is often colored by our theological beliefs.
But this evil is not a theological concept - it is human. Answering this question will require taking a different
approach.
What does evil look like?
Is my neighbor or brother evil?
These are questions we are less comfortable asking. Perhaps this stems from our fear that evil might not wear
red tights, but instead might look like us, or that the answer to the question about our neighbor or relative is in
fact, “Yes”.
Identification is a difficult endeavor. There is little cushion for the impact of realizing that some individuals, even
those close to us or who impact our daily life, could be best described as praxeologically evil.
Where do we look for evil?
Although some manifestations might mimic insanity, praxeologically evil people have unique attributes which
differentiate them from the mentally ill, impulsive or ineffectual. It might make history in the headlines of our
newspapers, but evil can also be seen in our neighbors, our clergy, our mothers, and yes, even in the helping
professions. It shows itself in subtle ways, impacting the lives of all who are exposed. Looking in the places we
would least expect - is perhaps the most effective way to find this evil.
11
All of these disturbing thoughts mean that a new understanding of evil - defined as a pervasive human state
with specific characteristics - must be considered, or else we will continue to mislabel evil as mental illness or
some other more comfortable excuse.
If we continue to avoid the reality of true evil, our hope for solving problems associated with it’s presence of will
be uncomfortably limited.
12
Chapter 2
Beyond Morality
“Remember that what you believe
Will depend very much on what you are.”
~ Noah Porter
At first glance, evil seems easy to define as “the opposite of goodness”. Goodness protects and loves,
while evil destroys and is loveless.
When asked to pinpoint examples of evil, people many will cite Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson, Susan
Smith or other heinous and famous criminals. Rarely does an individual respond by naming their
sibling, spouse or co-worker.
Society likes to believe that evil stands out; that it’s easily seen and detectable - just look for the horns
and pitchfork. Society does not like to believe that evil could unknowingly exist within the close circle of
our individual lives.
Events such as the bombing in Oklahoma City, the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and
the historical accounts of Hitler all point to an evil that does exist in an imposing - if not theatrical - way.
These and many other blatantly grandiose cases are highlighted or emphasized by society because of
the intense apathetic and sympathetic emotions they produce within us. Morally transgressive
behaviors can cause identifying pain, disease, discomfort and discontentment. We don’t like these
feelings. We need to understand. We need to fight back. We need to heal. We begin this process by
rallying and labeling these behaviors (and their perpetrators) as evil.
Praxeological evil, however, is far more subtle than the headlines, and can be found among us (if we
dare look) in the most unexpected of scenarios.
Consider the following two accounts:
The Case of John Durbin*
John Durbin was arrested after beheading his 13-year-old son on the side of a highway. As the news
accounts relate, John was driving down the interstate, and then suddenly pulled over onto the shoulder.
He exited the car, went around and removed the boy from the back seat, and on the side of the road in plain view of his other child - he decapitated his son.
Passing motorists were perplexed by what they thought they had seen (surely they didn't just witness a
man chopping off a child’s head on the side of the road?!) and used their cell phones to call the State
Highway Patrol. After a 40-mile low speed chase, the father was apprehended and taken into custody.
The state pursued the death penalty.
13
The Case of Debbie Miller*
At age 36, Debbie Miller is a divorced mother of three. Her oldest child, 11-year-old Julie*, attends an outpatient adolescent treatment program. One cool autumn night, Debbie came into the center and presented her
daughter for Tuesday’s group therapy session a few minutes before seven. After escorting Julie to the right
room, she waved goodbye to the staff and went out to her car, presumably to go home or perhaps shopping,
like most parents do during the 90 minute session.
The other adolescents scampered off to their respective meeting rooms, and Nathan, Julie’s therapist, was in
the front office with a few other staff members, finalizing the issues that would be discussed in each group. It
was now about three minutes after seven.
Debbie Miller swung open the facility door and breezed in. Glancing around, she spied Nathan still in the office
and rushed over. Beaming, she exclaimed, “Oh, I’m so glad you’re still out here and haven’t begun your little
meetings yet. Here, please make sure to give this hat and gloves to my loving daughter, Julie. Julie Miller.”
She presented Nathan with a red knit cap and some worn blue wool gloves, adding, “It’s rather chilly out
tonight, and if you end early, or if I’m running a few minutes late and she’s standing out front, I wouldn’t want
her ears and hands to get cold. Thank you, so much!” With that, she spun around and strolled away.
The room shook like thunder when the door closed. Or, maybe Nathan just imagined it. He sat for a moment,
staring silently at the exit. Finally composed, he turned to one of the other staff members and swore, “That
woman is evil!”
This is where praxeological evil takes a definitive turn from traditional understandings or definitions of evil.
As we know, society characterizes those who inflict harm or pain on others as ‘evil’, based on the moral or
theological interpretation of the behavior manifested. Surely a father who kills his son, especially as his other
son looks on, provides a prime example.
Likewise, society interprets as ‘good’ those behaviors perceived to be caring or considerate. A mother who
brings her child a knit cap on a cool autumn night would undoubtedly be labeled by most onlookers as good, or
at least not evil.
But, under the definitions of praxeological evil, John Durbin is not evil; try as we like, we cannot apply the evil
stamp to him. However, Debbie Miller, the mother concerned about her daughter’s health, is evil. Obviously,
the enigma of praxeological evil is not as simple as behavioral or moral interpretation. As we move beyond
behaviors to explore and consider personality, motivations and emotions, the paradox of these two cases
should become clear.
Radio, television and Internet headlines have sadly seen numerous horrifying stories like those of John Durbin,
Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. While we would never claim to justify, agree with or approve of their actions,
somehow, somewhere inside, we can see or understand how they came to do unspeakable things to their own
children.
Like all others, John Durbin’s story is tragic and appalling. And although initially it appears that John Durbin is
evil, it looked that way in the cases of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith as well. In all three cases, the juries
returned a verdict of guilty for the criminal behavior, but granted life in prison instead of the death penalty.
While the actions of the accused were definitely behaviorally evil, the jury refused to execute John Durbin,
Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.
They looked at the whole picture. They thought about motive. They thought about relevant emotional and
psychological factors, as well as the horrendous behaviors. They did not see these murderers as
praxeologically evil.
Some interesting facts came out in John Durbin’s trial. The insanity plea he used in court was not propagated
by a criminal defense attorney attempting to get a guilty client off the hook. Instead, it was an appropriate
14
defense, considering the very real psychiatric conditions this patient had experienced throughout his entire
adult life.
John Durbin did not murder his son because he was an evil person. John Durbin was delusional, and he
believed something that was not true: that his son was possessed by demons.
Based on this misbelief, John chopped his son’s head off on the side of the road - not because he wanted his
son to die - but because he wanted his son to live. He believed that his actions were benevolent. He loved his
son dearly, and wanted him to be free from the persecution of the demons. So, he decapitated his son - not to
kill him - but so the demons would have a way to escape his body.
You and I know this is backwards thinking, but for the delusional and psychotic individual, sadly, this is logical
and correct thinking.
Labeling a person as evil is far different than labeling an action as evil, and doing so can have considerable
ramifications and serious consequences. In the case of John Durbin, the jury of his peers was not willing to
label someone who had done something wrong as an evil person.
On the other hand, Debbie Miller did something that appeared to be good, as from a behavioral perspective it’s
considered a good thing to bring your daughter a knit hat on a cool autumn night. The twist comes when we
realize that the motivations behind Debbie’s actions had nothing to do with caring for her daughter. Truth be
told, she could have cared less about her daughter’s warmth or health.
Debbie Miller had an agenda. She knew that in the context of divorce and custody, the treatment center staff
would be making recommendations to the court about her child’s progress in therapy and her parental
participation and responsibility. Her motivation was to influence how the staff perceived her.
Although it can’t be proved, the consensus was that Debbie knew Julie had left the hat and gloves behind,
probably before she even got out of the car. Debbie wanted or perhaps even made this happen, because she
wanted the opportunity to sway or reinforce the way the therapist perceived her.
As ugly and unbelievable as it may seem, Debbie Miller was uninterested in her daughter’s warmth on a cool
night, but she was highly interested in the establishment and preservation of her role as the perfect mother.
Casting Stones
Society is faced with the task of criminal punishment versus psychiatric care. From a theological perspective,
defining evil solely from a moralistic standpoint serves the purpose of showing mankind the need for
redemption or retribution. But to characterize someone as evil based solely on moral behavioral transgression
would then imply that all men and all women are evil - including us, and the mother returning the hat to her
daughter.
Christ asked the question, “Who here is without sin?” We ask again, “Who here has never wronged or betrayed
another, or broken a law or rule?” We have all violated accepted standards of conduct at one time or another
by saying mean words to those we love, ignoring traffic laws, taking pencils home from our employer, or even
committing a sin simply because we enjoyed the feeling it produced. This theological perspective may have a
valid purpose in the discussion of evil in a religious context, but it does not accurately describe evil as a social
or psychological state of being.
Many people characterized in this book as praxeologically evil have committed no crime determinable as
punishable in any court; and yet they are not classifiable as involuntarily mentally ill either. And so, from a
clinical or social perspective, a moral definition of evil does us little good when facing the challenge of
therapeutic intervention, or getting along with a neighbor who we have determined to be praxeologically evil.
To emphasize, the concept of praxeological evil does not discount the importance of moral standards or
behavior, nor does it disparage any religious implications. Morality and religion are like flour. Praxeology is the
15
baked cookie. Flour alone does not a cookie make, but you cannot make a cookie without flour.
Truly helpful legal, social and individual answers to the problem of praxeological evil can be derived only when
we expand our understanding beyond behaviors. We must begin to look at evil from an all-inclusive
perspective, with criteria encompassing all of a person’s personality, emotional, behavioral and motivational
characteristics.
The challenge is quite complex. Many will rally against a definition or identification that is not based solely on
behavior or religious values, because it will appear to allow even the most reprehensible of all people to avoid
the label of praxeological evil - like John Durbin, for instance.
Others, like M. Scott Peck, have previously considered characterizing or classifying an expanded definition of
evil as a disease, somehow fitting into a medical model of illness. In Peck’s book, People Of The Lie, he
seemed to advocate the inclusion of an additional category of personality disorder that focused on evil in the
American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
But can you simply label evil as a subcategory in the medical model of treatment, and imply that the “gods” of
medicine and psychiatry can find a cure through chemical concoctions or hourly talk sessions? No.
Praxeological evil is far too enveloping for a psychiatric solution.
Stop and think for a moment about whom you would consider to be evil and why. Could these people actually
go to jail for their actions? Could any available or conceivable medication dramatically alter their personality,
instill appropriate values, and make them more ‘normal’?
In giving this question some serious thought, you may begin to realize the subtlety and pervasiveness of
human evil. In his book, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis writes a fictional account of an apprentice demon
who is learning the craft of being an effective demon from the master demon. In teaching the apprentice
Wormwood, the master demon, called Uncle Screwtape, emphasizes that being a successful demon involves
perpetuating the myth that the devil runs around in red tights carrying a pitchfork. This, Uncle Screwtape
underscores, de-focuses the human race from the presence of real evil and the true work of the demon, which
is to spread evil subtlety, throughout relationships among real people, in little ways.
Even when we detach the theological precepts from the above characterization, these concepts alone can help
bring us from a moral approach to an intellectual stance of recognizing evil as a pervasive and subtle condition
- one which transcends behaviors and consumes all aspects of the affected individual.
The praxeological definition of evil tries to encompass all of our understandings into an identifiable state. Evil is
neither just moral nor just psychological. Evil is not simply a destructive behavior. It is not simply another
psychiatric condition.
Evil is simply evil, and evil stands alone.
16
Chapter 3
Rule-Outs
To be,
Or not to be…
Praxeologically Evil.
It often seems far easier to understand what evil isn’t, than to define what evil is.
In a while, we will use case studies and familiar diagnostic language to reveal explicit criteria necessary
for understanding and identifying praxeological evil. However, we feel it is essential to first fully
establish in detail the rule-outs or differential diagnoses that are used in the cases presented in this
text.
These comparisons should be assessed by anyone who may be tempted to make the identification of
praxeological evil in another person. The reason is obvious: thorough assessment is not only the key to
accurate identification, but also to developing the correct or most effective intervention for the affected
person.
Should someone be casually labeled as evil and treated as such, but they were instead mentally ill,
they would likely not receive the most appropriate and effective therapeutic regimens, and probably
would not be helped.
The same is true of mislabeling in the reverse, of course. We choose not speculate at this time which
blunder would be more devastating to the accused, the accuser, and the innocent others in their lives.
In either case, accurate assessment is an essential task for the clinician. Understanding those things
that are commonly mistaken for evil, and probably occur much more commonly than evil, is imperative.
Therefore, what follows are the primary conditions or rule-outs that should be carefully considered
before categorically professing to have identified any person as being praxeologically evil. They include
personality disorders, mental illness, ineffectual life skills, and differing religious experiences.
#1 Rule-Out
Mental Illness
Mental illnesses are often mistaken for manifestations of evil, and vice versa. John Durbin and Andrea
Yates are perfect examples of the mentally ill person appearing to be evil. Like the praxeologically evil
person, the mentally ill or even substance-abusing person can engage in extremely bizarre or
destructive behaviors, can present with intense or labile emotions, and can have a disturbed
personality.
However, with the mentally ill person, the identification of praxeological evil cannot be made if the
symptoms we are calling evil occur exclusively during the course of an authenticated psychiatric illness,
such as major depression or schizophrenia.
The case of the father who beheaded his own son is a tragic example of mental illness in its most
bizarre form (some statistics actually show that the mentally ill person, contrary to popular belief, is no
more likely than the normal person to engage in murder or other heinous behaviors. Media itself seems
to perpetuate the myth that mentally ill persons are more violent than the general population).
17
Being understandably overwhelmed by the grotesque manifestation of this insanity naturally provokes us to
desperately grasp for justification and reason within our moral framework. The commonly reached conclusion
or solution which somehow comforts us and our own feelings about tragedies such as the Yates children, is
that something evil must have possessed the perpetrator.
The news accounts in the case of John Durbin clearly stated that he acted as he did in response to the
frightening warnings from the voices in his head. Presumably, he engaged in the only behavior he could
conceive of that would ultimately protect him and his other child from the evil spirits he believed were haunting
his son. Vanquished by his condition, he committed the atrocious crime publicly rather than covertly, and made
no attempt to cover it up or blame other people for his actions. The scenario John Durbin presents is a classic
delusional symptom, characteristic of mental illness, not of evil.
Other accounts of the story claim that the father heard voices and acted out his murderous behavior while he
was in a drug-induced state. Clearly, even this scenario is a classic example of a drug-induced psychosis
and/or addiction in the most fantastic extreme, rather than evil. Even if John Durbin’s delusional state
developed from his own actions because of his drug use, he was still a delusional person.
Questions surrounding the origin of psychosis won’t consume this publication. Some persons devoutly claim
that all psychosis and mental illness are direct manifestations of the devil or a demon. Others deny the
existence of mental illness all together. Some people simply blame bad genes.
Interestingly, all three proclamations above ultimately avoid the real issue of defining evil apart from our need
to validate our own goodness. To admit that immoral behaviors are not of some spiritually evil origin - but
instead are perhaps manifestations of mental illness - would uncomfortably imply that we are all vulnerable to
commit such heinous acts.
Whether we like it or not, this concept is true. We are all potentially vulnerable to mental illness or the
consequences of our addiction, but nobody likes to believe that they act as foolish, abnormal, or immoral as
others do when they are drinking or experiencing difficulties such as depression or other mental illness. No one
wants to believe that such a thing could ever happen to them, and so they may create an unsolvable excuse
for their problems, such as the devil or a demon. If not there, they somehow lay the responsibility elsewhere on
some other obstacle that cannot easily be overcome.
Praxeological evil is similar yet still subtlety different from mental illness. The DSM-IV requires that in order for
us to make a diagnosis of mental illness, the behavior we are labeling as mental illness must cause clinically
significant consequences to an individual in important areas of life functioning. This was clearly the case in
both the John Durbin and Andrea Yates stories. Unlike mental illness, evil often passes undetected, and rather
than causing impairment, it can actually help one prosper by worldly terms.
Perhaps most importantly, unlike the mentally ill, the praxeologically evil person is characterized by conscious
knowledge of their behaviors and motivations. The mentally ill person often does not recognize that his own
behaviors or motives even exist. Sometimes a mentally ill person who acts in a harmful manner towards others
has done so primarily in response to his or her faulty cognitive perceptions, thus believing their motives were
pure.
Consider Fred, who quit his job after a bout with major depression.
Because he believed that he was unable to do anything right, and therefore, must be a terrible burden to those
around him (classic symptoms of depression), Fred felt that it would be best for the company if he did not work
there anymore.
Because he lacked self-esteem or coping skills to communicate with the employer, he spontaneously
instigated an argument with his boss, and then walked out. His boss was very confused and hurt by the
unexpected exchange, and he never heard from Fred again.
Without the self-esteem or communication skills of the normal, healthy person, Fred’s use of the argument was
18
ingenious, in a sense. It served as the necessary catalyst to achieve his goal of helping the company,
by providing a forum for his termination. The mean and hurtful things he said were not intentionally evil.
He did not want to hurt his boss; he was simply manifesting the characteristic symptoms of his major
depression, compounded by ineffectual coping abilities.
#2 Rule-Out
Ineffectual Life Skills
Susan Smith, a young mother from Union, South Carolina, made the headlines of our nation’s
newspapers when she pushed her two children, Alex and Michael, into a lake, drowning them to their
death.
At seminars on the subject of evil, probably no public case brings up more disagreement and debate
than hers. When asked to think about the epitome of evil, this mother’s actions are often the first
mentioned.
Ever since Susan Smith’s trial, we have maintained that although what she did was an evil action,
Susan Smith is not an evil person. This shocks our participants.
More people disagree with us on this particular case than any other. Why? Because her actions were
so atrocious. Her helpless children, strapped in their car seats, were intentionally pushed into the lake
and drowned, screaming for their mother to help them.
At the trial, the prosecution prepared a videotape simulation of the fatal event. Without a doubt, this
movie visually brought home the horror associated with causing and experiencing such a traumatic
death. But despite all the evidence, the jury still chose not to execute Susan Smith. Instead, they
sentenced her to a life in prison.
Some members of the jury probably made this decision believing that for Susan Smith, it was probably
a fate worse than death itself. While this may have been on the minds of a few jurors, most chose not
for revenge, but at one level or another for empathy. Most of the jurors probably saw Susan Smith for
what she truly was: an ineffectual individual, not an evil one.
Let’s spend a minute trying to define what an ineffectual person is. An ineffectual person is without any
life coping strategies. They are unable to face the challenges of life, or the intense emotions that life
can sometimes bring.
In the case of Susan Smith, there were several things happening in her personal life at the time of the
murders which certainly tested her emotional and psychological ability to cope. Three of these things
were major.
The first was traumatic life experiences. She was in the middle of getting divorced, and at the same
time, her boyfriend had broken up with her. At age 20 with two young children, Susan was experiencing
some of the most difficult life changes a person can face.
The second major situation was intense emotions. She felt betrayed, hurt, angry, scared, fearful and
abandoned. These are all normal human emotions that we all experience at one time or another.
However, when you or I feel these emotions, we usually have a repertoire of coping skills to draw from
that help us deal with these difficulties. Susan Smith was an ineffectual person who did not have the
coping strategies we have.
She grew up in a family system where she was reportedly molested by a relative. The molestation was
not an isolated event, but was apparently an ongoing life experience. A child in this situation often
expects protection from the adults around them, yet her mother - ignoring or oblivious to the ongoing
abuse - failed to protect her own daughter.
19
This does not mean that Susan Smith should not be held responsible for her actions because she was
abused as a child. It means that when she felt those same intense and uncomfortable emotions that
you and I feel, because of her dysfunctional history, she was unable to draw from a repertoire of
healthy experiences to help her resolve situations in a positive way.
The third major thing in Susan’s life the time of the murders was simply the presence of her two young
children. Every parent knows that no matter how bad your day is going, you must continue to take care
of your children. Her youngest was only two years old. You can’t even escape to a different room for a
few minutes at this age, because two-year-olds will eat pennies or anything they can. Without a break
or healthy situational supports, this constant need for attention can at times feel overwhelming.
In her defense, Susan’s attorneys pointed out that she did not intend to kill the children when she drove
to that lake. In fact, she was feeling suicidal.
When Susan Smith felt difficult emotions and experienced the traumatic break-ups of her love life, she
got in her car to drive. Simply to drive, listen to music and block out her painful emotions, but ‘like a
good mom’, she had her kids with her.
Children pick up on parental emotional stress. As she drove around having a very “bad hair day”,
Susan’s children were likely traumatized by their mother’s emotions. When she pulled up to the lake
and stepped out of the car, she wanted to die. It is hard to know how people somehow cross over from
suicidal ideation to homicidal ideation, but at that moment she turned back to her car, released the
emergency brake, and rolled the children to their death.
As soon as she had done it, she panicked. Susan Smith immediately claimed that a big black man had
hijacked her car and driven off with the kids.
The story she contrived to cover her actions was so stereotypically simple, the sheriff immediately knew
that she was the prime suspect. When she got on TV and pleaded to the nation for the safe return of
her children, using that cliché of a lie, the entire nation knew that Susan Smith had perpetrated the
crime.
But that stereotypical lie was an indicator that she had not premeditated the murder her children, and
had instead reacted impulsively to her own actions. The evil person, unlike the ineffectual people, does
not react to their own actions. They are proactive, cunning, and plan their cover-up long before they
take any action.
Susan Smith was experiencing what we call 'The Depressing Triad': recent trauma or loss, coupled with
intense emotions and the inability to manage them effectively, and the presence of small children.
She did something horrendous when she murdered her own children. From a moral perspective, she
did something evil. But from a praxeological perspective, we can see Susan Smith for what she really
is, and that is sadly ineffectual, rather than evil.
Having made it this far in the book, you have no doubt begun to analyze and categorize all persons
within your own world. You may be attempting to determine whether your boss, neighbor or mother is
praxeologically evil because they only say hello when the want to borrow something, or they stab
someone in the back over a promotion, or they smile politely in front of company, yet nitpick in private.
It is very important to recognize and always bear in mind that some people are just plain ineffectual.
Most people don’t murder their children when they are ineffectual. But some people will do and say
stupid things, make mistakes, act impulsively or lose their temper more often than others.
People only know how to do what they know how to do.
If they knew how to do things differently, or were fully able to profit from life experiences, most people
probably would.
20
We learn how to interact with others through either formal instruction or simply absorbing these
concepts by observing those around us. Thus, the person that grew up in an unhealthy or ineffectual
family will often have a low or poor start at acquiring appropriate social skills. The person who grew up
with family members who could not control their emotions and perhaps even raged or were abusive, will
probably also either have a difficult time expressing themselves in a controlled manner, or will turn out
so overly controlled that it makes them appear as though they have no emotions at all.
Just as the person who grows up without a father may not be able to fully relate on that subject with a
person who did grow up with a father, the person who has never (or rarely) been exposed to the
expression of love without implications of sex, may find it difficult to adequately express or understand
love without sexual connotations attached.
This is not say that people can never learn new ways of communicating or behaving. Statistics show
that many, if not most people have the ability to recognize that their surroundings are unhealthy, and
can then make the conscious decision to figure out ways to interact with others on a more positive
scale. Examples surely abound of the profound social maturity leaps many have made that would rival
even the accomplishments of the poor farm-boy, who 20 years later is perhaps a multi-millionaire in the
computer industry.
Others, however, may also recognize these dysfunctional factions, but have just enough narcissistic or
anti-social personality traits in them to consciously choose to not change or grow healthier. Some of
these people might eventually be categorized as evil, but most simply remain ineffectual, socially inept,
on probation, in civil court, or are just plan old annoying.
All of our individual personalities are made up of varying degrees of distinct personality traits. Some
experts claim there are only 13 different categories of these traits, and others can list hundreds of
separate and distinctive features. Regardless of the real numbers, the point is that whether from nature
or nurture, some of us are simply more adventurous than others, or more sensual, or more talkative or
more quiet. Some of us are leaders and some are followers, some are doers and some are thinkers,
some are givers and some are takers, some are more confident by nature or nurture, and others are
more self-conscious and nervous. Therefore, since we are all so different, and while these exacting
human qualities make sure life is never boring, these circumstances also assure that some of us just
won’t get along well with others, like oil and water or fire and ice.
So, before the reader is ready to make his list and check it twice of all the evil people he knows, he
should stop and think for a good long while. Do the people on the list do what they do to intentionally
hurt others, or do they just not know any other way of doing or saying something? Are they perhaps just
overwhelmed with life and thus unaware, and/or make occasional poor judgments? Are they really
selfish and narcissistic, or do they maybe just not know any other way to take care of themselves or
their family and assure that their needs are met? Are they nice only when they want something
because they are users or manipulators, or are they perhaps so insecure that they feel people will not
care or want to help them unless they are extra friendly and prove themselves first? Or maybe they are
just thinkers, and so when they are not engaged in need-meeting activities, they are simply in another
world or more reserved.
As we define evil in the coming chapter, we will see that four criteria must be met simultaneously for an
individual to be labeled evil. If those four things are not co-existing, we may simply be dealing with an
ineffectual individual, who albeit may have harmed others, but nonetheless is only ineffectual.
#3 Rule-Out
Personality Disorders
There are some very mean personality disordered individuals in this world. The antisocial seems to be
devoid of conscious. The borderline seems impulsively wrapped in themselves, and their unstable
affect may appear as lovelessness. The narcissistic personality disordered individual clearly defines
what is right and wrong due to his or her own self-centered worldview. And although personality
disordered individuals may do things that harm other people and that are mean - the personality
21
disordered individual is not inherently evil.
They don’t really know that there is anything wrong with them, because they have been this way all of
their life. Nothing has changed with them, and even though they might continually have problems
related to their actions that stem from their natural beliefs or ideas, they blame these problems on other
people and things in the world around them. The personality disordered individual is a responder rather
than a creator of life situations and scenarios.
To qualify for a clinical diagnosis of any personality disorder, the person must meet all of the following
criteria as taken from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, by the
American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
General Diagnostic Criteria
for Personality Disorder:
A) An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the
expectations of the individual’s cultures. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the
following areas:
1) cognitions (i.e., was of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)
2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response
3) interpersonal functioning
4) impulse control
B) The interring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social
situations.
C) The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairments in social,
occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D) The pattern is stable and of long duration in its onset and can be traced back to at least
adolescence or early adulthood.
E) The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of
another mental disorder.
F) The enduring pattern is not due to a direct physiological effect of a substance (e.g., a drug
of abuse, a medication) or general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
Additionally, the personality traits that define the personality disorders must also be distinguished from
characteristics that emerge in response to specific situational stressors or more transient mental states.
For example, mood disorders or substance intoxication.
Personality traits are diagnosed as a personality disorder only when they are inflexible, maladaptive
and persistently cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress. If a personal empirically
meets the criteria listed above and expounded upon in the DSM-IV, and also meets the required
number of detailed characteristics for one or more of the personality disorders, then the diagnosis can
be made.
As you will see in the next chapter, our model of the praxeological person almost fits the diagnosis for a
personality disorder, but it still misses the mark. There are two things that truly differentiate the
personality disordered individual from the evil individual.
22
1. The personality disordered individual always suffers clinical impairment.
A person can not be diagnosed with personality disorder unless the personality traits we are calling
abnormal lead to clinically significant distress in at least two out of four of those important areas of
functioning. In most personality disordered clients, the impairment is not significantly found in all four of
the four important areas of functioning, but nonetheless there is impairment.
What makes evil so difficult to recognize is that because of a person’s state of evil, they are often
successful, and suffer no impairment.
2. The evil person consciously chooses their actions.
Even the narcissistic personality disordered individual has an external locus of control. While they may
appear self-directed and autonomous - especially while communicating in the typical aggressive
manner of the anti-social - we see that the personality disordered individual is reactionary. They believe
that when something is wrong, it is because something outside of them is controlling their world and
what happens in it.
The narcissistic sex-offender believes that his consequences are the fault of the judge. The loyal,
dependent personality disordered individual, who goes down with the corporate sinking ship, believes
that a force outside of himself has led to the downfall he has experienced. The evil person, whether
getting away with the evil they perpetrate or suffering the consequences of their evil actions, knows that
they have been in control, and have either executed their evil flawlessly or with error, but ultimately they
are responsible for its success or its failure.
The evil person certainly has many personality constructs, particularly malignant narcissism,
that seem to be shared with the Cluster B personality disorders of borderline, antisocial, histrionic and
narcissist. However, there is no underlying conscious motivational factor with the truly personality
disordered person. They simply do what they do because they always have, believing it as right and not
understanding why it fails them again and again. Those with personality disorders don’t learn from their
experiences. They are impulsive responders.
The evil person does have this inherent knowledge, yet they are still motivated against the greater
good. Although they compensate for it, cover it up, learn from experience and hone it, they are
conscious in one way or another of their dysfunction, unhealthiness, oddness, inappropriateness,
harmfulness or hurtfulness to themselves and to others.
For reflection, examples of the characteristic traits of the four Cluster B Personality Disorders are listed
here.
Borderline Personality Disorder
The borderline personality disordered person is primarily characterized by unstable interpersonal
relationships, with additional contributory traits of frantic efforts to avoid abandonment, identity
disturbance, impulsivity, recurrent suicidal behaviors, mood instability, feelings of emptiness,
inappropriate or uncontrolled anger, and stress-related paranoid ideation are all present.
Due to these abnormal personality qualities, they are simply unable to sustain close interpersonal
relationships. Not because they intentionally manipulate or hurt others for personal gain, but because
they are simply incapable of doing what they need to do to maintain such relationships. Their
manipulation is an outgrowth of the inability to maintain relationships, as opposed to a conscious
decision to destroy those relationships.
They believe that what they are doing is right or normal, and that others have the problem and should
simply be more understanding of their intense unpredictable emotions, wishy-washy loyalty, hot-andcold sexuality, ever-changing hairstyles and impulsive, often irresponsible behaviors.
23
The borderline personality disordered individual is usually female, but not always. They can be your
best friend one minute, and your worst enemy the next. You might never know what happened to
change their perceptions and subsequent behaviors, but you can be assured that, at least in their mind,
it was your fault.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
The narcissistic individual has a pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy
that begins in early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts. According the DSM-IV, they have
a grandiose sense of self-importance; they are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power
and brilliance. They believe that they are special or unique, and they require excessive admiration. The
narcissistic individual has a sense of entitlement. They are interpersonally exploitive and take
advantage of others, and they lack empathy. They are often envious of others or believe that others are
envious of them. Arrogance is a pervasive among the narcissistic personality disordered individual.
Despite these rather ominous characteristics, they are still not considered evil. They lack a conscious
motivation for self-preservation and to intentionally cause harm to themselves or others. They simply
respond impulsively, with limited coping strategies.
While NPD’s certainly feel they should be respected or even overly recognized for no legitimate reason,
they have no overt need for self-preservation because they believe they are already perfect and always
will be, and so there must be something wrong with the ignorant people around them. In other words,
their personal motto may be “I’m so cool, yessiree, I’m so cool, because I’m me!”
Antisocial Personality Disorder
The antisocial personality disordered person is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for
and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15, as well as by supporting features of
deceitfulness, repeated lying, irritability and aggressiveness, reckless disregard for the safety of others,
consistent irresponsibility and lack of remorse for hurting or mistreating others.
The antisocial person is capable of sustaining a few interpersonal relationships, as loyalty and
allegiance are important to them. They do not, however, function very well within society as a whole.
This is because their fundamental core personality leads to a significant disregard for the rules and
regulations that society imposes, such as those against lying, cheating, stealing, vandalism, abuse,
reckless driving and murder. These behaviors, of course, generally lead to significant impairment in
their lives, via social out-casting and/or frequent incarceration. It is important to note that they do not
necessarily commit these acts with the specific intention of hurting others. That is what the evil person
does.
The antisocial personality disordered person is by nature a thrill seeker. They solicit a potential rush
from their actions. They generally engage in risky and even illegal behaviors to simply fulfill their need
for adventure and challenge. The antisocial is acting appropriately in his or her own mind and responds
as needed, or impulsively, to their perceived external locus of control, and therefore they do not always
take precautions to avoid detection or getting caught. Though they may love, and even seek out the
thrill of being pursued, they are often perplexed or angered when confronted or arrested for their
abnormal and often criminal behaviors, behaving as if it were all just a game. Their slogan could be, “If
you’re not living on the edge, you’re taking up too much space!”
Histrionic Personality Disorder
The histrionic personality disordered person is characterized, according to the DSM-IV, by a pervasive
pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior. This is supported by traits of being
uncomfortable when they are not the center of attention, their use of inappropriate sexual or
provocative behavior, rapidly shifting and shallow emotions, physically drawing attention to themselves,
and detail-lacking speech. They are theatrical and exaggerated in their expression of emotions.
Histrionic personality disordered individuals are easily suggestible or influenced, and generally consider
relationships to be more intimate than they actually are. They are charming, lively, dramatic and
24
flirtatious - and they are master seductionists. They believe almost everything you tell them, and they
might act as if they have been your best friend for eternity.
Histrionics may bring life to a dull or boring party. However, their intense theatrical follies and grandiose
emotions tend to wear thin on their interpersonal relationships, as their demand for attention never,
ever subsides. When discounted or ignored, the histrionic person will perhaps be devastated, but they
do not look within themselves to find fault or causation for the lack of appropriate excess attention to
others. Instead, they will naturally assume that others are simply inconsiderate or mean, and then
rapidly move on to more avid, respectful attention givers.
The intense dramatic and perpetual behaviors they engage in have no adverse motivation beyond
fulfilling their inherent need to be the positive or negative center of attention, and to be accepted or at
least recognized by others. Dancing naked on a table or screaming hysterically at a tiny spider are
simply elemental manifestations of their core personality. They do not necessarily care what others
think about them, as long as they are receiving attention.
The evil person, however, does care about what others think about them. They crave and are motivated
to seek out an audience for their behaviors that will reinforce a roll, which we will label as the ‘perfectvictim factor’. Evil hysterical behaviors are consciously calculated to emphasis emotions, create
distractions, or convey passions.
#4 Rule-Out
Religious Experiences
The devil is interesting. Phenomenal religious stories are certainly attention-grabbing. Popular religious
books and movies over the years have deeply explored and vividly exposed the work of Satan in our
daily lives.
It is true that within both mainline and fringe religious movements, the odd, bizarre and even
horrendous do occur. If this were not the case, there would be no need for the Addison, Illinois law
enforcement to feel compelled to clarify that devil worship did not play a role in a small town murder, in
which a pregnant mother and two children were slaughtered, and the fetus was cut out and allowed to
live.
While rampant church burnings in the early 1990's drew attention to racial conspiracies and hostilities
towards religious groups, one North Carolina church burning was seriously investigated as being
connected with local satanic worship. For decades, religious groups have warned of the influence of the
devil in each generation’s modern music, and thousands of records have been destroyed because of
the satanic messages that allegedly exist when they are played forwards or backwards. A culture’s
undeniable appeal or interest in the macabre and occult has allowed movies like "Friday the 13th", "The
Exorcist" and their numerous sequels to become top revenue producers.
The purpose of this book is not to focus on the vast and varying religious beliefs surrounding Satan’s
involvement in spiritual or moral evil, or even to speculate on potential theological causes of this form of
evil. However, it is clear that through culture, widespread religious experiences such as belief in the
devil or the Antichrist, or emotional encounters characterized as demon possessions or exorcisms and
the mass following that cult and fringe groups can gather, has shaped our personal and societal
definitions of the word or concept of evil.
Over 900 people (including 276 children) died with Jim Jones at the People’s Temple in Guyana, and
84 people (25 children) died with David Koresch in Waco, Texas. The simple knowledge of these facts
continues to question and shape our own belief systems.
Mainline denominations and the Catholic Church have written about and accepted the realities of
demon possession at various times. Even the religious groups that do not profess a belief in literal
possession by a satanic figure or spirit will at least talk of the subtle and pervasive work of evil
influence.
25
However, recent commentary on adolescent devil worship or Satanism all seem to draw similar
conclusions which indicate that it is not the person’s individual religious beliefs or their relentless force
of evil itself that draws our young to these manifestations of religious experience. Instead, this attraction
was discovered to be a vast change in response to isolation, rejection and the need to develop a sense
of acceptance or belonging, regardless of how antisocial or immoral the behaviors may be. Adults,
enamored by the mystique of the occult, also seem to follow profiles that show a lack of necessary
healthy aspects to their personality and lack of experiences that would have had more positive
influences in their lives.
It is clear that the vast majority of adolescents and adults involved in satanic activities or devilish cults
share the same characteristics with those that join street gangs, chess clubs or youth groups. They
share the desire to be accepted and develop a sense of belonging. Generally, they are not even real
Satanists, but merely lost individuals desperate to fit in somewhere, somehow.
Unfortunately, this devil motif is quite interesting — perhaps more interesting than working
therapeutically with people to help them develop a sense of belonging. As a result, countless police
hours and counseling sessions have been wasted in pursuit of satanic ritual abuse evidence, or in
sharing glorified stories of bizarre religious rituals that quite possibly never existed. Due to these
wasted hours, affected persons have never had the opportunity to address the real issues - belonging,
security and significance - and to have their true needs met during a period of emotional crisis, or the
standard adolescent crisis of identity development.
A couple of years ago, a teenaged ‘vampire cult’ made the news in Louisiana for dismembering an
elderly couple and drinking their blood. While this case certainly exhibited occult overtones, the true
motivation for the murder was simply theft and robbery.
While we admit that the study of evil from a theological perspective can be quite intriguing and even
scary, and that the bizarre murders and crimes committed by alleged Satanists can be very dramatic
and even consuming, evil - identified as a praxeological syndrome - is different from the religious
manifestations that appear throughout time. Evil from a religious perspective is based on moral
definitions, with the cause being Satan or a similar construct. This kind of evil is not that common, even
in the dramatic events of life. Usually, those who inscribe satanic messages or leave emblems
reflecting devil worship at a crime scene are either doing little more than attempting to cover up their
immoral behaviors with the sensational, or they are so desperate for personal identity that Satanism is
the theme they adopt.
It can’t be enforced enough that praxeological evil is quite different from theological evil. Real evil is far
more likely to occur within the religious behaviors and attitudes of mainstream religious practice, than
spiritual or satanic evil. The Deacon of the local church, conveniently hiding behind a religious title, is
conceivably more prone to being identified as praxeologically evil than the axe murderer who places a
goat’s skull at a crime scene.
26
Chapter 4
Identification of
Praxeological Evil
You will know them
by their fruits.
— Jesus Christ
To accurately define praxeological evil as a pervasive and subtle condition, we have proposed a set of
specific identifying criteria. Evil is a condition which does not meet a medical or disease model of
illness, primarily because of the supporting evidence of conscious motivations and free will.
Additionally, praxeological evil, unlike a mental disorder, can not be treated with medication or
traditional psychotherapy, and unlike a disease, it does not have a proven predictable course.
Outcomes of either success or failure are therefore, potentially difficult to ascertain.
However, professionals and the experience of many readers will naturally come from a clinical
perspective or medical model. Therefore, we have chosen to proceed by outlining or identifying criteria
in a manner familiar to many readers of the DSM-IV. We hope through this recognizable format to
convey ideas regarding the essential presence of four key attributes, and to lay the ground work
necessary to further explore possible clinical and interpersonal manifestations.
In the preceding chapter we discussed the rule-outs or other conditions that may appear evil, based on
moral definitions or theological understandings. On the next few pages you will find our summary of the
four specific identifying criteria for praxeological evil. Following the summary, we will discuss each
criteria in detail.
The diagnosis or identification of evil remains only a conceptual idea. Because evil manifests itself in so
many of life’s paradigms, expanding our awareness of evil is essential, but the caution remains:
To diagnose anyone as praxeologically evil will undoubtedly create severe
ramifications for both the accuser and the accused.
27
The Neat Little Box
All four of the following areas must be evidenced as a set of
conditions (syndrome) throughout a broad range of interpersonal
and life experiences, for an identification of Praxeological Evil.
A) Behavior
Behavior, that when manifested, consciously either overtly or subtly
impacts others in a manner producing entropy.
1) Behavior that reinforces both or either side of their dual “perfectvictim” role
2) Behavior that creates a dichotomy of power between themselves
and others
3) Behavior that makes others look bad, harms others directly or
indirectly, or causes victimization
4) Lying and deliberate deceptions
B) Lack of Love
Emotions are consciously chosen and are demonstrated or
expressed in place of, or to compensate for, the lack of natural
human love.
1) Lack of genuineness or empathy
2) Relationships have only the pretense of having any value other
than self-serving motivations
3) Over-responsiveness or under-responsiveness of emotional
expression
4) Frequent display of non-pleasurable emotions (i.e., irritation,
disappointment, jealousy, betrayal, hurt, etc.)
5) Non-emotional expression, or ‘flat-affect’
—continued—
28
C) Motivation
Primary conscious motivation for behaviors stems from fear of
discovery, and thus individual motivations are directly related to
maintaining or accelerating their perceived status or power, and
preserving their identity roles.
1) Motivation to receive positive recognition or glory, whether
deserved or not
2) Motivation to counteract their extreme low tolerance for feelings of
failure or inadequacy
3) Motivation to achieve self-preservation at the expense of all
others
D) Malignant Narcissism
A pervasive quality of personality expression which includes
malignant narcissism and a conscious disregard for the rights of
others, often including most or all of the following characteristics.
1) Selfish and inconsiderate attitudes
2) Manipulative, self-serving behaviors
3) Overwhelming sense of entitlement, and/or that they are ‘special’
and deserving
4) Seek and require excessive and frequent admiration and
recognition
5) Self-righteous and sanctimonious; follow their own rules
6) Incapable of admitting or accepting personal wrong-doing or
thinking
7) Arrogance and over-valuation of the self
--end--
29
People are usually labeled evil because of what they have done wrong. When evil is considered
from a moral and behavioral perspective, it is then also possible to view someone as primarily
good throughout their entire life - and apply evil as a judgmental response only when they
specifically engage in actions that are inconsistent with society standards or outside our
expectations and desires.
To identify someone as praxeologically evil is a much stronger proclamation, and it is not a particularly
simple endeavor. Evil of any kind is often masked or disguised as good. The pervasive and subtle
manifestations of praxeological evil make it a particularly difficult challenge to detect.
It is important to clearly differentiate between the person who is praxeologically evil and the person
who, as we have discussed, is ineffectual, mentally ill, personality disordered or manifesting value or
religious beliefs different from our own. The reason is simple. If we do not differentiate, we misdiagnose
the preceding individuals as evil, therefore depriving them of an opportunity for intervention that can
truly bring about change and wellness in their life.
In defining pervasive or praxeological evil, we will take into account these four specific attributes of an
individual’s life. The first thing to look at are behaviors; specifically those that when manifested either
overtly or suddenly, impact others in a manner that tears them down or harms other people.
The second thing that we will look for in order to define praxeological evil is a lack of love - a state of
being where emotions are consciously chosen, demonstrated or expressed in place of or to
compensate for the lack of natural human love. The inability to love other individuals - simply because
they are fellow creations of God, and the inability to respect human life simply because it is human life is one of the hallmarks of the evil individual.
Next we will look for a personality expression that includes malignant narcissism and a conscious
disregard for the rights of others. Last but not least, we will also look for motivations that primarily stem
from the fear of discovery — meaning that their individual motivations are directly related to maintaining
or accelerating their perceived status or power and preserving their identity role.
What differentiates praxeological evil from other definitions or understandings of evil is the requirement
that all four of these elements simultaneously exist - throughout a person’s life span.
At one time or another, all of us have been narcissistic. At one time or another, we have failed to truly
love. At one time or another, we have all done something that has brought harm to another individual.
But, even though we did these things recently or long ago, we would not characterize ourselves as evil
individuals.
In the examples given so far, we have seen people who have harmed other individuals, like Susan
Smith and John Durbin. And while they may have exhibited moral or behavioral evil, and while what
they did may have been an evil action, they were not evil people. Even though what they did was
horrendous, the above four factors defining praxeological evil did not co-exist in their lives in an
ongoing fashion, defining who they were as people.
Praxeological evil is a catastrophic diagnosis. It makes personality disorder or catastrophic mental
illness look like a minor cult. The diagnosis of praxeological evil is scary, because it means that a
person has not only done something wrong, but that they themselves are wrong.
1 Behaviors
The Things They Do
In order to meet the criteria for praxeological evil, a person must engage in behaviors that harm other
individuals.
An interesting thing about the truly evil individual is that those who have been harmed by their
behaviors often do not recognize that they have been victimized, until it is much too late.
30
A common question concerning the subject of evil is: Can a person be evil because of what they think?
A rather definitive answer comes from a surprising source. Dean Martin’s hit song from the Broadway
play, The Most Happy Fella, tells us how it is:
“Standing on the corner, watching all the girls, watching all the girls go by. Well, you
can’t go to jail for what you’re thinkin’...”
The diagnosis of praxeological evil requires specific behaviors, not just thoughts. All of us think evil
thoughts now and then, but until we follow through on those thoughts with actions that harm other
individuals, the diagnosis of evil cannot be made. Simply having an attitude that is destructive or
harmful is not enough. In our society, you cannot go to jail for what you’re thinking, and a diagnosis of
praxeological evil can only be made when there are behaviors to backup the thoughts.
The behaviors seen in the people we will characterize as evil are as follows:
1) They are very subtle, and yet pervasive throughout all aspects of a person’s life.
2) They intentionally impact others, whether the victim has knowledge of this impact and
intention, or not.
3) They consciously induce or enhance entropy, which causes a systematic breakdown or
destruction within personal relationships or society as a whole.
4) They have a specific, intended audience, whether present at the time or not.
Some witnesses may view the individual behaviors as good, since they often have no knowledge of the
perpetrator’s motivations (which we will discuss later) behind the actions. Referring back to the opening
story of Debbie Miller, she appears to engage in only good behavior, while John Durbin clearly violates
the norms. The paring of these two stories exemplifies the subtle deceptive quality of praxeologically
evil.
As you will see when we explore the case of Debbie Miller in more detail, the specific act of bringing a
knit cap back to the therapy group for their child was not simply benevolent or caring on the part of the
mother. The behavior was chosen and carried out to reinforce within the children the lie she has been
telling them over and over again - “I am the only one who can adequately take care of you” - and to
impress upon others who might see or hear her performance that she was a good and caring mother.
The hat was intentionally left behind and brought back to serve a unique purpose.
On the other hand, from a purely moral perspective, John Durbin’s actions would certainly qualify him to
be judged as evil, however, he committed this brutal act because of his hallucinations or mental illness.
While his condition may not be a legal excuse for his behaviors, it does not constitute praxeological evil,
as defined as a pervasive state of being. John Durbin engaged only in an isolated behavior, and as
bizarre as it seems, it was benevolent, since his motivation (although originating in cognitive error) was
to free his son from demon possession.
Also important to the finding of praxeological evil is recognition of a person’s frequent lying. A little lying
is not an uncommon occurrence - studies indicate that most people lie in some way each and every
day. The predominant differentiating attribute is that the praxeological evil person expresses a devout
belief that their lies are the truth. As a friend of mine once stated, “It’s as if they (evil people) believe
that if they say it three times, it automatically becomes true.” The quality of these lies and the
motivations behind them will be discussed in more detail as we touch on the issues of personality.
31
2 Lack of Love
How They Feel
A lack of love characterizes the praxeological evil individual, which is turn causes their emotional
expression to be accentuated or physically substantiated. This dramatic phenomenon is one of the few
plainly observable features of the evil person.
Evil people often use histrionic displays of emotion to compensate for a lack of true love. When you
think of some of the television ministry scandals of the 1980's, you may conger mental images of
certain individuals, who although they said they were loving and concerned about their audience, acted
in ways that exhibited grandiose emotional expressions. These kinds of grandiose emotional
expressions are a trait that the evil person possesses, in order to compensate for a lack of true love.
Many of the evil person’s behaviors may certainly appear to be that of a natural, loving nature,
especially when supported by their emphatically sincere emotional displays. Understandably, this
pretense can make the quality of lovelessness difficult to ascertain. Nevertheless, the presence of this
loveless condition is often detected through ‘mystical warnings’ or uneasy feelings experienced by
witnesses when confronted with true evil, even when it’s dressed in goodness.
Love itself is often considered to be an elusive concept, yet it has been clearly defined for ages by four
Greek words: agape, storge', Eros, and philia. The content of the following definitions alone should
be a strong indicator that love is not really an emotion per say, but rather an experience, or simply a
state of being.
The praxeological person is incapable of naturally accepting or experiencing - and subsequently
expressing or receiving - manifestations of any form of love. Therefore, they develop a creative,
defensive manner of communication, dependent totally upon the exaggerated expression of emotions.
As a culture, we are prone to almost flippantly use the word love as a catch all term in a million different
ways, from, “I would love to go see that movie” to “I love you, dear” to “Don’t you just love my new
shoes!” Because of this, the real meaning of love has perhaps been discounted, distorted or confused
over time.
As recalled by Karl Jung upon his death in 1961, “Where love rules, there is no will to power and where
power predominates, there, love is lacking.”
Real love, in all forms, is something natural that happens to you - that you feel,
experience and share. True love of any kind has no secret motivation or conscious
choice behind the experience. Real and true love just happens. Contrary to some
popular psychology books, love is not a choice, it simply is.
Real love itself is a noun, though the manifestation in communication can be described as a verb.
Agape
Agape love is often associated with Godly love or the love that God has for us. In more social or
psychological terms, it is what might be referred to as ‘unconditional positive regard’. It might be
considered the highest form of charity, meaning that no matter what a person does they are still loved
and/or lovable, simply because they exist.
Most people feel a sense of comfort that their God loves them simply because they are creations of that
God. Praxeologically evil people feel that there must be conditions on all forms of love; they must
become a certain perfect person before anyone will love them. Subsequently, since evil people
inherently know that they are not perfect, even though they are not willing profess this, they ultimately
choose not to accept or give this form of love.
32
Storge
Storge love (pronounced “store-gay” or “Store-ghee”) is described as a find of family love, or the
instinctual love and natural affection or sense of peace and bonding felt between parents and children.
This also applies to animals and their young, and in other thoughts, Storge was a Greek God of love
between animals and people.
While the latter definition may not seem to fully gel with the concept of parental love, it truly does, as
storge seems to imply or encompass an introspective or natural feeling of fondness for other people or
things that relate emotional meaning or connection to us. In its purest form, storge love is instinctual or
inherent empathy. Empathy is how we understand our connection to the world around us.
C. S. Lewis gave an example of storge love as being something similar to the natural feeling of
affection and fondness one experiences when seeing a child’s abandoned or forgotten toy lying alone
in some unknown family’s yard, or the warm feelings of fondness and affection brought on by noticing
the age and wisdom wrinkles on an elderly stranger’s face as she passes by. Praxeologically evil
people will express, to any available audience, their exaggerated irritation or even condemnation over a
careless child who left the presumably valuable toy in the yard. This reaction would be designed to shift
focus and force the portrayal of themselves as a better parent with better children.
Were the child to be their own in this scenario, the evil parent would react in much the same way, and
might even maintain a smile through their overly disciplinary remarks. The underlying motivation would
be to overcome their embarrassment at failing to adequately uphold their pretense of perfection for both
themselves and their children.
Secretly, behind a forced acknowledging smile, the evil person would wish that the wrinkly old woman
(who so inconsiderately imposed her presence upon the world) would disappear or even die, so she
would not have to be seen, as her presence only reminds us of the hopelessness of the past, present
or future.
Eros
Eros love is the natural sexual love experienced between people. It has been described as “love of the
worthy or attractive” and “love that desires to possess”. Eros was the Greek god of love and passion,
and from the word Eros stems the word erotica.
When in the right situation, most people are naturally consumed with passionate sexual urges toward
another person. They have an overwhelming innate desire to bond and express their love physically
with that person. This concept goes beyond high school lust, as there is a considerably deeper
meaning involved. The evil person never seems to outgrow the adolescent phase and engages in
sexual behavior not out of true passion, but for specifically motivated self-serving reasons.
Primarily, they, like all humans at one time or another, have a desire to meet their physiological needs
and will engage in sexual activities designed to fulfill those needs. However, they do so without regard
for the implication or satisfaction of the chosen partner.
Secondly, they use sex as manipulation, believing that by either initiating or submitting to sex with
another person as a specific situation may warrant, they can convince the chosen partner that they are
expressing some form of love or devotion. They are then able to receive something of perceived value
in return for their sexual display - other than love - be it a continued relationship, money, children or
leverage for future concerns.
Lastly, they may actively seek and engage in narcissistic procreation, believing something like, “I am so
wonderful - the world needs another me.”
33
Philia
Philia love is a kind of brotherly love, hence the name of the city Philadelphia. A kind of friendship love
built on common interests, insights and tastes. It’s the casual, acceptable love expressed nonchalantly
between coworkers, neighbors, friends or groups of people gathered for a common purpose or goal.
Overall, most people enjoy a sense of comradery or belonging when interacting with others in specific
situations and in life in general. People brought together for any reason - be it three friends going out to
a movie, 30 people at work or 300 people gathered for a car show, generally experience a feeling of
acceptance, equality, security and significance — simply because they can relate to and understand
each other via common ground.
The truly evil person does not find comfort or peace in these interactions. They cannot just be with
others and enjoy the fellowship involved at work, church or craft shows. They do not simply accept
others to be their equal, and they are irritated by the imposition of those around them. These are
loveless characteristics.
These loveless characteristics however, are only revealed through the subtlety of the perhaps intense
behavioral manifestations of emotional expression that draw excessive attention to themselves,
condemn or belittle others, or cause distraction from the attention given to others.
As perceptible emotion is their only resource of interpersonal communication or expression, the truly
evil person is prone to swift and dramatic mood swings. They may move rapidly from anger to joy or
even to a pretense of sympathy, as required to adequately maintain the functionality of a current
relationship within a given situation. They do this to compensate for their inability to communicate
through the natural presence of human love. Since they are truly dependent on the physical display of
emotion or expression, they frequently utilize a broad and heavy range of words and exaggerated body
motions. This is the only way they know to fill the gap; to perpetuate any kind of relationship, from those
with lovers to convenience store clerks. It is as if they are an actor playing the role of what they are
supposed to feel.
Their emotional expression is not always congruent with that expected of normal people, and their
levels of expression are rarely consistent from one situation to the next. When the praxeologically evil
person should be moderately happy, this time you would think they had won the lottery, and the next
time it’s as if they had not noticed anything at all of uplifting significance. When they should be a little
sad, this time you would think their mother had just died, and the next time they show no empathetic
feelings at all. When they should be somewhat embarrassed, this time one might think they had been
caught naked in a church, and the next time they appear to have no shame.
Anger or other negative and loveless emotions are frequently chosen by the evil person to identify or
express themselves. This is presumably because dissenting emotions are easier to intensify, and thus
have the most effective and lasting impact for fulfilling their motivations. Anger is often described as a
shield or an emotional wall builder. This is for two reasons. First, anger will shield or mask the emotions
that are behind or under the anger, like fear, hurt, shame or pride. Secondly, when someone is angry,
they distance themselves from others through the intensity of their emotional expression. Nobody likes
to be around an angry person, and so the long-term consequences of an angry lifestyle are frequently
alienation. Praxeologically evil people tend to burn-out existing friendships and other intimate
relationships because their persistent, overwhelming displays often scare off new introductions or
innocent bystanders, sometimes even precluding casual relationships from forming.
Fear is another common and powerful motivating force in the lives of the evil person, and it produces
intense emotional responses. This hidden emotion is frequently manifested through extreme selfprotectionist behaviors, such as careful manipulations, blatant lying, blame shifting and confrontation
avoidance tactics, all designed to eliminate or mask their fear. Excessive instigation or confrontation
against others may also be utilized to project or confuse blame. This in turn protects against the
discovery of their true self.
34
Evil people are also excellent fear-propelled documentation collectors. They must do so to keep track of
themselves and others, on paper whenever possible. All the good or appropriate things they have done
- and the bad or inappropriate things others have done - are usually meticulously kept track of to protect
themselves in the future against confrontation or to prove that others were wrong. They also learn to
use other people or methods - like letters, or faxes or email - to communicate their messages when
they are afraid of losing emotional control. This of course leaves room for error and potential blameshifting in the future, as well as for portraying a goodness or victim quality of recognizing ones own
limits.
3 Motivations
Why They Do The Things They Do
Have you ever done something wrong for the right reason? This is generally considered poor judgment,
not evil. In some situations, doing something wrong might even be justified, but according to a moral
definition or a solely behavioral definition, it would still be evil.
One overly simplified example at this point would be the driver who swiftly and cautiously performs a
sudden illegal lane change in effort to avoid certain collision, and then resumes normal driving once the
situation stabilizes. While it is true that he violated the traffic law, the rational person would say he is
justified by his pure, good motives. He displayed no signs of disturbed personality. His reactionary
motions were appropriate, even though what he did was wrong. The motivation behind his behavior
was of good intent, and therefore the scenario clearly does not lend itself to the identification of
praxeological evil.
Robin Hood perhaps, makes a stronger, yet subtler example of poor judgment by robbing from the rich
and giving to the poor. He is clearly doing the wrong thing, but for a perceived justifiable or right reason.
Legendary account depicts no signs of personality disturbance, and reveal that he was acting with
perceived empathy and love towards the poor. Robin Hood believed that he was not hurting the rich by
his behaviors; therefore, Robin Hood would not qualify as praxeologically evil even though he remains
a criminal.
Recognizing the underlying motivations behind behaviors is perhaps the most significant key to defining
praxeological evil as a pervasive condition. The praxeologically evil person is motivated by the
following:
1) To gain power or control over others
2) To receive recognition and sympathy from others
3) To define a self-identity viewed positively by others at any expense
4) To meet the profound need for security, not through ones own merits or values, but from others
5) To engage in behaviors that preserve their pretense or lie of goodness
6) To overcome the deep seated fear that others will discover their true evil, imperfect and inadequate
self
The DSM-IV-TR has an interesting psychological illness listed in its pages called Munchausen’s
Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP). This is a condition where a person, usually the mother, feigns or induces
illness in a child, which occasionally results in the child’s death. The behaviors characterizing the MSBP
perpetrator appear on the surface to be beneficial and compassionate: taking the child to the doctor,
demanding second opinions, calling for special treatments for their problems and rallying public support
for problems or for reform. But the motivations of desperately seeking medical care or going to great
lengths and publicly crying for assistance are not to help the ailing child. They are solely to preserve the
perpetrator’s “perfect-victim” status with others.
35
Through validating herself as a loving, caring, concerned and devoted mother who must valiantly suffer
with the unexplainable and seemingly incurable problems of a child, the MSBP mother engages in
these reprehensible behaviors only out of her need to persevere and enhance her sense of self - even
at the expense of her own child. The motivation is not to bring harm to the child, but to build a special
relationship for herself with others — generally medical care givers and those who she perceives as
having high status, like physicians and hospital chiefs — to live out the role of the perfect, yet suffering
mother.
We propose that the MSBP perpetrator is praxeologically evil, not mentally ill. Their motivation is
consciously self-serving. Their emotions are profound and intense. Their behaviors harm other
individuals. And while they maintain a pretense of displaying good and helping behaviors on the
surface, their hidden actions and agendas are truly destructive and dangerous to their victim. Their
behaviors consciously induce entropy, with a paradoxical intention to build themselves up.
Plagued by malignant narcissism, truly evil people often view themselves as superior, but feel that this
recognition is not made adequately by others. To overcome this perceived deficiency, they must seek
out ways to receive extra attention and praise.
Each year, firefighters on the west coast battle grass and wildfires that threaten lives and property.
Every now and then, one of these firefighters risks his own life to battle a blaze and receives
recognition for his diligent labors, only to end up arrested and charged with arson for being the person
who started the fire he so bravely put out. While we will not rush to judgment by immediately classifying
all such firefighters as evil, this callous and criminal example serves as an excellent portrayal of the
great lengths the truly evil person may traverse to meet their perceived needs.
A more subtle example of evil motivations could be the person who either complains of back problems
preceding a sporting event - and then performs poorly, thus receiving sympathy failing due to their
ailment, while at the same time gaining recognition for trying anyway; or the person who complains of
back problems - and then succeeds during such an event, thus receiving extra attention for succeeding
despite their proclaimed suffering. The back pains would be feigned of course in either case, but most
witnesses would never know this to be true.
Single incidents such as these are certainly not sound justifications for identifying someone as
praxeologically evil, as a solitary act precludes the pervasiveness qualification of the diagnosis.
However, it is hoped that these examples may further serve to convey the subtle nature of the
condition.
4 Malignant Narcissism
What They Think
In his book, People of the Lie, psychiatrist and best selling author M. Scott Peck considers the idea of
making ‘evil’ another classification of clinical personality disorder, characterized by malignant
narcissism. We are against this idea. In our opinion, doing so would ultimately insinuate that evil people
are not consciously aware of their behaviors, or are in some way not responsible for them.
We’ll say it and say it: praxeological evil stands alone. It is not mental illness; it is not personality
disorder. It is a conscious state of being. It is a chosen lifestyle. It is the core of character. And that
character is narcissistic.
However, Peck’s ideas point our attention to the many characteristics or personality traits that the evil
person does seem to share with the personality disordered individual. In fact, as discussed in the ‘ruleout’ section above, the similarities are frequently so strong, that evil is often mistaken or misdiagnosed
as one or more of the Cluster B personality disorders: antisocial, borderline, histrionic, but most
commonly the narcissistic.
36
The difference between these two identifications is perhaps delicate, but infinitely important. Like
personality disorder, evil manifests itself through a person’s will. The person with a personality disorder,
even the narcissistic and antisocial types, is driven by an external locus of control. The personality
disordered individual can and generally does somehow sense that something is not quite right
throughout most of their own little world, especially when they feel the consequences of their abnormal
or unhealthy behaviors. But because personality disorder is the core of their being - personality is
established in infancy if not before, and theirs is disordered - they cannot identify the source of their
problems, except as coming from somewhere outside of themselves.
For example, the narcissistic personality disordered person looks in the mirror and may see a
wonderful, successful, attractive, simply perfect person - and so they wonder why they are experiencing
difficulties or why others don’t seem to understand just how great they are.
On the other hand, the praxeologically evil person looks in the mirror with a more realistic view. They do
recognize their flaws, and they analyze them very carefully. They are beginning to grey - do they need
to color their hair to maintain their role? They don’t know much about property law - do they need to
study up to file and win a suit against their neighbor? They could tell that Missy didn’t quite buy the
display of sadness over their coworkers sudden death - how long will they need to practice to produce
tears on demand, so they’ll be more believable next time?
Their narcissism leads them to believe they are capable of masking or manipulating any and all
personal flaws or perceived imperfections to their favor or in a way that will lead to admiration, selfdefined success, or other self-serving goal.
Personality disordered individuals rarely, if ever, develop conscious knowledge that the problems or
repercussions they experience are the result of their own ineffectual coping or communications. They
do what they do, because it is all they know how to do. It is what seems right to them, based on their
natural personality characteristics. They believe it is up to others to change, and that they have no
power over the perception or actions of others.
On the contrary, the praxeologically evil person is driven by an internal locus of control, which is usually
associated with a healthy personality. When having trouble because of their unhealthy behaviors,
emotions or motivations, they know unquestionably that they alone are responsible. And they will do
everything in their power to fix the problem, no matter what needs to be done, or who gets hurt in the
process.
They do have conscious knowledge of the judicious differences between good and evil; they know
when - and they know why - they are choosing evil. It’s this same internal locus of control which
provides the adaptability and manipulation powers necessary to evade detection and discovery.
Subsequently, the evil person experiences very little troubling consequence from their behaviors, and
their condition in general.
Furthermore, although they would never admit it, we believe the evil person knows that they are evil,
regardless of their characteristic self-protectionism and intense denial. A narcissist is in-tune with
themselves - fine tuned.
Acutely aware at all times of their status in the eyes of their audience, the evil person is an expert
blame-shifter and will attempt to pass responsibility or condemnation on to others, just as the
personality disordered person will. But the personality disordered individual has no conscious
motivation, other than an inherent impulsive urge to meet short-term needs. They shift the blame for
their behaviors to others simply because they are incapable of internalizing the notion that what they
have done is wrong or abnormal. They believe that external controls determine their destiny, and that if
something goes wrong, it’s not their fault. They truly believe that if not for the judge, they wouldn't be in
jail — never comprehending that if they hadn't stolen the hubcaps, they wouldn't be in jail.
37
The evil person formulates carefully thought out long-term plans and calculated behaviors. They may
outwardly blame external forces or controls in order to appear non-responsible, but they secretly
believe that they are internally capable of manipulating all people and situations to their personal
advantage, which results in the development of specific intentional behaviors, rather than impulsive
reactions. The evil person’s motivation for these behaviors is twofold: to avoid the unveiling of their true
self (which they know is not perfect), and to perpetuate their ideation of consummate internal power
and control - believing that they are superior to all, and thus above reproach.
Like personality, evil is not only who they are, but also what they are, or at least what they have
become. Unlike personality disorder, which requires significant impairment in at least two areas of
functioning for a diagnosis to be made, an identification of praxeological evil can be made even when
there is no visible functional impairment. In fact, because the evil person is so skilled at manipulation
and setting pretenses, the quality of life from a human perspective is often enhanced for the evil
individual, and they may actually be able to maintain a high level of success in worldly endeavors.
The quality of situational consistency seems to be another area where personality disordered and evil
people differ. Although the individual behavior of a personality disordered person many be self-serving,
dramatic and impulsive, they are consistently self-serving, dramatically or impulsive. They always act
and behave this way across most all situations, no matter who is around or what time of day it is.
The evil person lacks this emotional behavioral consistency. As a subtle condition, evil manifests in
many different ways at different times, depending on the specific motivational need of the moment at
hand. Sometimes it might be beneficial for the evil one to smile invitingly at their coworker in the
morning if they are feeling a need for extra attention that day, and at other times it might be more
helpful in the long run to keep the curious coworker at a personal distance by cloaking themselves with
anger. While this elusive characteristic may make it easier to differentiate praxeological evil from
personality disorder, it may also create a greater difficulty in discerning evil from normal behaviors.
The narcissistic personality disordered person is narcissistic - they always thinks they are right, perfect
and wonderful. The praxeologically evil person uses their narcissism, generally to their advantage.
They believe they know when it is smart to appear vulnerable or less than perfect to achieve a certain
goal, and so they adjust their performance accordingly. They are the consummate “perfect-victim” and
they play both roles on cue.
This again illustrates why we must carefully consider the pervasiveness and motivations behind a
person’s actions before identifying them as praxeologically evil. Without the disturbance of personality
accompanied by evidence of the other established criteria, we are most likely dealing with a condition
or behavior that is not pervasive, and an identification of praxeological evil can not be made. Just as
personality disorder cannot exist within the framework of an isolated relationship or single social
situation, the condition of praxeological evil cannot either.
38
Chapter 6
Feminine Faces of Evil
"A tough lesson in life that no one has to learn
is that not everybody wishes you well."
-- Dan Rather
Kathleen
Praxeological evil is more subtle than Susan Smith.
Praxeological evil is pervasive, and can fool us.
It can even fool the First Lady, and most of our country.
In 1994, Hillary Clinton was in the midst of her campaign for healthcare reform when a terribly sad case
came to the attention of the White House, illustrating perfectly the seriousness of the need for dramatic
political and social policy changes.
Little Jennifer Bush, an eight year old girl with multiple health concerns, was devastating her family’s
financial resources by her ongoing needs for intensive medical care and surgeries. So young, and she
had already experienced more than 200 separate hospitalizations and 40 surgeries, including having
her gallbladder, appendix and part of her intestines removed.
Jennifer’s mother presented her daughter’s case to Mrs. Clinton, pleading for reform. With a medical
history of this magnitude, she claimed, it was impossible to manage their family’s finances, and without
socialized medicine or government intervention, the family would be destitute.
Hillary Clinton and the rest of the world, through no fault of their own, were subsequently duped by
perhaps one of this country’s most bizarre and nefarious stories of praxeological evil. (To be politically
correct, we’ll mention that in a similar case, Yvonne Eldridge was named national "Mother of the Year"
in 1988 by Nancy Reagan.)
In 1996, two years following Jennifer’s appearance as a poster-child for healthcare reform, her mother,
Kathleen Bush, was charged and convicted of aggravated child abuse and organized fraud for the
numerous (and very expensive) bills that Medicaid had to pay due to the many medical problems she
had provoked in her child.
Once removed from her home and placed in foster care, Jennifer’s medical conditions began to
improve almost immediately. It appears that through various methods - ranging from psychological
induction and coercion to actual physically poisoning - Kathleen had actually induced the life
threatening illnesses in her own child.
39
According to psychiatrists, Kathleen Bush suffers from a condition known as Munchausen’s Syndrome
by Proxy (MSBP). MSBP has been classified as an extremely rare psychiatric disorder. 98% of known
cases are females, and 95% are the mothers of the victims.
The common characteristics of MSBP include mothers of young children (primarily infants and toddlers)
or other care-takers, who generally possess some flavor of medical experience, who usually have
undergone a recent trauma or loss, and who have very strong personalities. This is a condition where
illness is feigned or deceptively induced in another person, most often a child, and can result in
expensive (and painfully unnecessary) medical testing and procedures, severe forms of subtle abuse,
and devastating mental and physical health consequences.
About ten percent of known MSBP victims die because of the perpetrator’s behaviors. This is homicide.
(The fatality statistics are most likely much higher, but MSBP itself - as well as the related fatalities - are
often very difficult to prove.) Nevertheless, death or no death, MSPB is a blatant yet sly and
sophisticated from of child abuse, carried out by a praxeologically evil perpetrator.
MSBP is classified in the DSM-IV as a factitious disorder. It’s considered a sub-manifestation of
Munchausen’s Syndrome, which is a similar condition that occurs when the ‘illness’ is feigned in
oneself. MSBP is also frequently referred to as a sub-class of personality disorder.
These syndromes or conditions take their name from a German man named Baron Von Munchausen, a
self-proclaimed war hero, who told very tall tales of his adventures in battle and life. His mystical stories
of fantastical adventures were either false or grossly exaggerated, but they were always relayed with
such great passion, conviction and apparent first-hand knowledge that listeners could (or at least
almost) believe in their honesty and accuracy.
It is our contention, however, that unlike most factitious disorders such as Munchausen’s Syndrome,
Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy has no sound foundation to be classified as psychiatric mental
illness, by the pure definition of mental illness alone. To do so would require responsible clinicians to
carefully and skillfully ignore or manipulate the underlying source (motivation) behind the perpetrator’s
behaviors so much as to eventually proclaim that these people are somehow unconsciously or
involuntarily engaging in the harmful behaviors (towards others) that ultimately lead to their diagnosis or their clinical ‘excuse’ for lack of personal responsibility - of being ‘mentally ill’ or ‘disordered’.
We do believe that Kathleen Bush suffers from a severe abnormal state of being, but not necessarily
from a clinical ‘psychiatric disorder’. Her ‘condition’ of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy appears to
easily exemplify our model of praxeological evil, and thus we feel it should be identified as such.
Our position on MSBP is further supported by the apparent difficulty clinicians have in simply trying to
appropriately categorize the condition, as well as the lack of any significant treatment developed by
psychiatry for MSBP. Law enforcement officials, however, have found and believe that successful
‘therapeutic’ MSBP interventions include either removal of all children from the home of the perpetrator,
or better yet, incarceration.
When we mislabel praxeological evil as a psychiatric condition, we then create the wrong interventions
to impede the condition, and the evil continues despite our good intentions.
40
Waneta
“Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear,
but around in awareness.”
-- James Thurber
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is a real medical condition that kills children primarily between
ages two and four months, and produces tragedy in the lives of hundreds of families each year.
In 1994, the US Government started a public education campaign called ‘Back to Sleep’ to educate
parents of the simple risk reducing procedure of placing infants on their back when putting them to
sleep. This program has since resulted in a decrease of almost 30% in the number of US SIDS cases
each year. This simple procedure has not only saved countless lives, but the dramatic decrease in the
number of SIDS deaths is significant evidence supporting the notion that most SIDS deaths are in fact
due to real (though perhaps still unexplainable) medical conditions.
But, as with anything else, exceptions to these legitimate deaths do exist. As reprehensible as it may be
to think about, murder is the unproved - yet often suspected - probable cause of untold numbers of
unexplained SIDS deaths.
As acknowledged before, from a behavioral perspective, murder is surely evil. But, as also stated
however, there must be more than one action or isolated incident to accurately identify or label
someone as praxeologically evil. Therefore, to claim that a SIDS death was an act of praxeological evil
- even one proven through investigation to be murder - would be imprudent, perhaps even callous, and
certainly most difficult, without significant research into the suspect’s entire identity.
We believe, however, that the case of Waneta Hoyt has been reported widely enough to allow for this
scrutiny, and the resulting story is one that dramatically appears to illustrate the subtle, elusive qualities
of praxeological evil.
Between 1965 and 1971, five children born to Waneta Hoyt perished, reportedly from SIDS. The last
two babies were each carefully monitored for breathing difficulties at a Syracuse hospital, and each
died suddenly within a day of being sent home. These occurrences spawned significant SIDS research,
which eventually lead to the disbursement of home breathing monitors for families at risk of such
difficulties as sleep apnea.
By all accounts, Waneta Hoyt appeared to be a loving mother who desperately wanted and cared
greatly for each of her children, and she even fainted at the funeral of one. She was looked upon as a
terribly unfortunate mother, and was cared for and comforted by the people in her community in every
way they knew how.
The controversy began 23 years after the death of her fifth child when the District Attorney, with
encouragement from a Texas physician, began to take a second look at the string of ‘unexplained’
cases. With a renewed interest in the still grieving mother, police interviewed Waneta Hoyt for the first
time in 1994. Amazingly, she confessed to murdering all five children, reporting that she had been
unable to control their crying and had smothered them with household objects such as a pillow, or as in
one case, with the flesh of her own body, holding the child close until the struggling stopped. (It was
amazing that she confessed, not that she had actually committed the murders.)
Hoyt was considered an active churchgoer, known for her crocheted afghans and for being a truly
generous member of the community. She regularly visited the graves of her children, displaying great
emotional distress over her losses. News accounts report that following her interrogation and
subsequent confession, she began to wonder what negative things others might think of her and asked
to see her husband. She was quoted as saying, “I loved my children. I love my (adopted) son, Jay, and
my husband. I feel the burden I have carried by keeping the secret of killing my children has been a
41
tremendous punishment. I most definitely feel remorse and regret my actions. I cannot go back and
undo the wrong that I have done.”
She later recanted her admission of all the murders.
Waneta Hoyt appears to exemplify our profile of the praxeologically evil person.
To onlookers, Hoyt generally engaged in good, normal behaviors. She was apparently not considered
strange, odd, or weird, except for her freakish misfortunes. She was functional in her community, was
liked by her peers, and attended church more than most. The loss of her five children brought her
recognition and sympathy from far and wide. In fact, her “perfect-victim” story has since divided the
town’s people, with most still supporting and defending the ‘good’ Waneta Hoyt.
Clearly, the behavior of murdering five of one’s own children meets the moral-behavioral definition of
evil, as well as fitting our criteria of behavior that harms others (the children and father directly, and the
community indirectly). The pervasive quality of praxeological evil is seen however when we review the
years of repeated damaging behaviors, masked by her subtly perceptive manipulations, such as
making frequent methodical excursions to lay crosses at the headstones and wailing at a funeral until
her body could no longer support her and she had to be carried from the gave site.
Her interrogation remarks stated plainly that her motivation for murdering each of the five children was
ultimately to cease their crying, which she found so difficult to tolerate. This motivation is indicative of
the characteristic ‘lack of love’ or lack of natural empathy found with the praxeologically evil person. It is
a well known fact that babies will cry, and when they do it is the parent's job to comfort them, fulfill their
needs and love them - even through the noise - knowing that in the end it is all worth the work.
One murder may perhaps be sadly passed over as ‘dysfunctional’ or representative of a lack of healthy
coping skills or situational supports. But a string of five murders for the same reason is certainly
representative of pervasive lovelessness.
Observers might also wonder about negative motivations directed towards her husband. Everyone
characterized them as being an extremely close couple, and the deaths only occurred when her
husband was away on work. When he was present, Waneta was considered to be far less stressed,
and there were few if any reported breathing difficulties. When the Hoyt's had adopted baby Jay, the
husband was laid off from work, and was home during most of the child's early years.
During her confessional interview, Waneta reportedly stated that she believes she has suffered enough
for her crimes - simply by virtue of keeping the secret all these years.
This narcissism fits well within the profile we have drawn. Despite her admitted responsibility for the
deaths of her five children, Hoyt would seem to convey a pervasive grandiose sense of special
entitlement that would excuse her from social or legal punishment. This again perpetuates her identity
as the “perfect-victim”, for if she must now be formally punished, she will have to ‘suffer’ further, though
differently, which of course would be unfair (in her mind).
In the weeks leading up to her trial, Hoyt spent her time caring for her ailing sister and attending church.
A friend even publicly defended her innocence by recalling the intense emotions Waneta displayed
when pregnant and setting up each new baby’s room, and then again after each death as she would
tearfully pack the baby’s things away.
Yet again, upon careful evaluation, only a praxeologically evil person could put on such pretenses so
pervasively and consistently - could display such exaggerated appropriate emotions; could be so
manipulating and convincing to witnesses - and then could so seemingly lack any natural love and
empathy for her own children, and thus personally lead to their demise, again and again.
42
The case of Waneta Hoyt points most unquestionably to the subtle quality of praxeological evil and its
unrelenting presence over two decades. This case made the headlines. It is dramatic, and has pulled
researchers and physicians into ongoing heated debates over the unexplained deaths of children.
To us however, this case serves as a serious reminder that praxeological evil can be found among the
most innocent of tragedies, and within those whom we least want to suspect of perpetrating any evil...
Parents.
43
Chapter 7
Subtle Evil
“It is better to sleep with a sober cannibal
than to sleep with a drunken Christian.”
-- Ishmael in Moby Dick
“Always remember others may hate you,
but those who hate you don’t win - unless you hate them.
And then you destroy yourself."
-- Richard Nixon, Farewell Address
Debbie - In Detail
Scott Peck writes, "The most typical victim of evil is a child. This is to be expected, because children
are not only the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, but also because parents wield
a power over the lives of their children that is essentially absolute.” He continues, "If one wants to seek
out evil people, the simplest way to do so is to trace them from their victims. The best place to look,
then, is among the parents of the emotionally disturbed children or adolescents."
Our book began with a comparison of the behaviors manifested by John Durbin, who lopped off his
son’s head on a highway, and Debbie Miller, who brought her child a knit cap on a cool autumn night.
As we relate these two stories to professionals and explain that our conclusion that Debbie Miller is the
parent manifesting praxeological evil, many become disturbed and even argumentative.
Although the behaviors of each parent are in stark contrast, upon reading “the rest of the story” it
should be more evident that Debbie Miller had no genuine concern for her child’s warmth or health, but
only for maintaining the presentation of appearing ‘good’ to those who may have been observing her
bringing the hat to her child.
Debbie, as will be detailed, represents a more typical portrait of praxeological evil than one would ever
dare to expect - though this may be difficult or even displeasing to ascertain - as the demonstrated
expressions of her evil are carefully disguised, manipulated, and extremely subtle.
Upon examination, the manifestations of praxeological evil in the life of Debbie Miller were found to be
pervasive and long-standing. She had a distinctive past filled with destructive personal and professional
relationships, and a family history that seemed to indicate the presence of evil on a multi-generational
basis.
Debbie, age 36, was three years divorced and had three young children. She worked as the office
manager for a large community agency that aided the indigent. Outwardly it would seem that she was
the impeccable portrait of a good and loyal mother and friend, and had been a good and loyal spouse
as well.
44
During her divorce, Debbie moved to a metropolitan community several hundred miles away from
where she had lived with her husband. She had taken the kids and left Bob after years of putting up
with his womanizing and pornography. She made the noble decision that to provide a Godly home for
her children, she would have to start a new life with them, far from the hedonistic influences of her soon
to be ex-husband.
Love seemed to pervade the essence of Debbie Miller. Upon first meeting her, a warm and friendly
smile predictably emanated, followed by a typical compliment such as, “It was truly a pleasure for us to
meet.” Her zeal for community activities and contributions of time and talent to worthwhile organizations
were seemingly based on a genuine concern for the community and those less fortunate than her, and
had made her a well known figure within her social circles.
Debbie’s characteristic grandiose emotional displays of compassion and sympathy, her unconditional
graciousness and conscious direct eye contact during all interactions seemed to indicate the presence
of overflowing natural love, especially in light of her many humanistic endeavors.
She greeted her children and all others with enthusiastic loving hugs, every time she met with them.
She sent cards for every holiday, including Groundhog Day, to everyone she knew in her family and
professional world.
But something just wasn’t quite right with these expressions. Her emotional responses to any situation
seemed carefully rehearsed and practiced. The quality of her loving displays lacked genuineness, if for
no other reason that she simply appeared to love too much. She was trying too hard to be good. One
observer commented that it looked like she learned how to interact with others by watching old ‘B-Rate’
movies.
Initially, her intense communications of emotion and apparent need to be the center of attention
seemed to indicate that a diagnosis of Histrionic personality disorder could be easily applied. Upon
investigation, one would surely be lead to believe that Debbie had suffered impairment in her life
because of her intense emotions, by burning out relationships with her intensity, zeal and occasional
vindictiveness.
She admittedly had an angry streak - though she did her best to cover her rage with a smile - but this
antagonistic attitude frequently dissolved relationships, often before they even had a chance to begin.
Furthermore, she was fickle with her friendships. She would be overly praising one minute and then
intensely chastising the next.
Soon, a diagnosis of Borderline personality disorder came under consideration. However, when she
filed for child support modifications three days after Bob remarried, and then intentionally ran over an
already dead cat in the road on the way to meet Bob for the ritual exchange of the children, the
antisocial nature of her personality was becoming more evident.
It was believed that Debbie Miller undoubtedly represented some manifestation of personality disorder,
but the exact nature of its elusive quality was puzzling. Although her abnormal behaviors spanned
across a broad spectrum of situations, highlighted by those concerning her ex-spouse and the children
during and after her divorce, she really didn’t seem to be impacted or impaired by the results of her
behaviors in any negative manner.
Additionally, Debbie was not impulsive. Each act, including the desperate transfer of her daughter’s hat
to the treatment center therapist, was carefully planned out, and this conscious premeditation is
certainly not characteristic of the personality disordered person.
After struggling over the categorical subsets of potential personality disorders, it was ultimately
determined that Debbie failed to sustain any complete set of diagnostic criteria for a specific clinical
abnormality. The days of the DSM-IIIR and the diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive personality disorder
were longed for, but even that designated criteria set seemed to miss the diagnosable mark.
45
It eventually became eerily clear that Debbie Miller was praxeologically evil.
Her grandiose and impassioned greetings and general high-impact emotional interactions could be and easily were - mistaken by onlookers as manifestations of an overwhelming love and zest for life.
The truth, however, is to the contrary. The grandiosity and overbearing nature of her communications
stemmed directly from her lack of love, not over abundance. Debbie was unable to communicate with
anything other than these intensified emotions - because of her inability to express or receive natural
love.
This subtle quality of lovelessness, with its emotional compensation, is a trademark of the
praxeologically evil person. The ‘normal’ person communicates acceptance and belonging with natural
love or empathy. The intense emotions of the evil person are forcefully created to make up for this
deficiency. Although expressions of anger, irritation or low frustration are often dramatized or
exaggerated by the evil person, so are all other human emotions, including sincerity, sympathy and
compassion. Debbie Miller was no exception. To the more conscientious observer, the comment, “She
seems nice, but something about her just isn’t quite right,” was a common reflection.
Her personality was very strong, bordering on overbearing. Many might say that this is simply
characteristic of the secure or highly esteemed individual. However, through extended observations,
the quality of her confidence and self-sufficiency began to closely resemble the malignant narcissism
alluded to by M. Scott Peck and Eric Fromme.
Debbie thought all work she did was very important, and never hesitated to share her accomplishments
with any who would listen. She believed her employment positions were so crucial that once when she
planned to resign from a job, she gave six weeks notice instead of two, so that she could personally
select and assist in training the person who would be hired to take her place. She frequently stated that
without her personal abilities, the company she was employed by would be utterly unable to function.
During any conversation concerning her children, she would invariably make a point to emphasize her
‘good parent’ status. The discussion was always somehow redirected towards her, and she frequently
stated that she always did everything with “the best interest of the children” in mind.
Evidence of her narcissism was manifested by extreme denial whenever she was confronted or
challenged on even the most insignificant of subjects. Like other narcissistic individuals, she had to
have the last word, but more than that, her word must be accepted as truth, or the challenger would be
written off as betraying her.
Debbie seemed unable to empathize or understand a situation from another person’s perspective, and
would quickly turn against those who disagreed with her. Anytime she obviously failed at a task or
engaged in a behavior contrary to popular standards, she turned the tables, and would blame others for
her misfortune or for sending her in the wrong direction. She would emphatically deny any responsibility
for any situation gone awry, and those who persisted in this line of confrontation were considered
traitors.
This behavior manifested itself clearly in post-divorce mediation sessions when she was confronted
about behaviors that could cause emotional damage to her children. Her standard response to any
such criticism was that ‘with the knowledge she held and presumed to be true, she only did what a
good mother would do to protect her children’.
The self-righteous and sanctimonious aspects of her personality showed themselves behaviorally,
emotionally, and even on her bumper sticker which read, “Feed the Children!” While her over
involvement in community activities, ranging from the PTA, to the local lung association (because her
father smoked), to her twice weekly Bible studies, also brought attention to her pervasive personality
disturbance and need to be perceived as ‘good’. The full impact of these endeavors is amplified when
we mention that she was the President of the PTA, she facilitated the Bible studies, and she was the
publicity coordinator for the local lung association.
46
Clearly at face value, Debbie seems to overwhelmingly manifest only goodness. She was a giver to the
community, greeted her children with hugs, carried them forgotten caps and went to work dutifully on
time everyday. She left her rotten husband to create a Godly environment for her children, and went to
church four times a week.
When one thinks of praxeological evil, this is hardly the image conjured up. The difficulty here is this:
How do you dare confront or condemn someone for so successfully donating time and resources to the
school, God, or non-profit organizations?
Although she had demonstrated these subtle behavioral, emotional, personality, and motivational
characteristics in similar ways her entire life, without the crisis of the divorce and the subsequent
behaviors characteristic of Parental Alienation Syndrome, most observers probably would never have
suspected Debbie’s evil.
The subtleties of praxeological evil - coupled with the outward appearance of self-sufficiency and
concern for others - can make for an elusive condition to discredit. In order to define the quality of evil,
behaviors must be interpreted in light of motivations.
Debbie Miller really seemed to live a double life. As is expected of the praxeologically evil person, all of
her outward behaviors to those she perceived as potential resources for her were good. But to those
she perceived as weaker or of little benefit, her manifestations of praxeological evil were full blown.
Debbie incessantly characterized her former spouse as an ‘irresponsible, drug addicted, pornographer’.
Bob, however, was an accountant, who although had experimented with drugs in college twenty years
ago, hadn’t ingested alcohol or drugs in any form for over a decade. She called him a pornographer
and publicly worried about his ‘addiction to sex’ and the possibility of pedophilia. The truth discovered,
however, was that Bob only purchased run-of-the-mill adult magazines featuring adult women, on an
intermittent basis during the declining end of their marriage.
These kinds of lies or exaggerated mistruths are typical of the praxeologically evil person, and serve
two purposes. First, white lies and embellishments are carefully designed to increase the perceived
moral character differences between the evil person and those who threaten the security of their
“perfect” person status. Secondly, these situational and character deformation lies serve to substantiate
the “victim” status, by showing the ‘evils’ that they have had to suffer and overcome. In Debbie’s case,
these lies frequently centered around her former spouse - who she feared her children might love
equally, thereby threatening her status as the primary caregiver and perfect mother.
As stated, Debbie’s psychologically evil displays were intensified and became more sophisticated
during her personal crisis of divorce, and a pattern of behaviors characteristic of Parental Alienation
Syndrome began to emerge. However, the key that differentiates Debbie from other mothers
considered ineffectual or mothers who are simply vindictive is that Debbie’s behaviors were more
esoteric and premeditated, and they adequately preserved both her perfect-mother status and
victimized ex-wife role.
Debbie was prone to frequently put the children in the middle of adult responsibility situations. She
would tell the children that their new stepmother was not permitted to discipline them, and require the
children to report back to her after each stay at their father’s house, detailing every conversation that
occurred. She would challenge the father through type- written messages - filled with threats of legal
action or child protective services investigations - should she hear that the stepmother had reprimanded
the children.
When confronted with rationale by her former spouse, she typed a swift response to Bob simply stating
that, “THEY were the legal parents with all corresponding rights and privileges, NOT the stepmother,
and THEY alone were responsible for and entitled to hand out discipline, of any kind.” She also claimed
that she knew these things to be true because she had contacted her attorney about the matter.
47
While this particular situation may appear to be logical at the outset, the distress these types of
dramatically publicized warnings caused was immeasurable, especially for the two youngest children.
For a while, Debbie had even convinced them not to accept any food prepared by the stepmother, and
not to allow her to give them baths. The children then feared going to the father’s home at all, not
because they would be disciplined there or that their stepmother would serve them food, but because if
they forgot or allowed something taboo to occur and their Mommy found out, they would experience the
brunt of her unpredictable, intense emotional display.
Clearly, giving baths and preparing food are situations representative of natural, parental behaviors and
responsibilities. Debbie thus perceived that the stepmother’s performance of these actions would
threaten her unique maternal status with the children.
Debbie started to demand a full accounting of each article of clothing or toy transported to and from the
father’s home, and began providing a detailed and itemized list. She would then pronounce Bob
irresponsible, inconsiderate or uncaring if a sock or hair clip was not returned.
Though it would seem she had achieved her goal when the children began to echo these overly
negative characterizations of their father and stepmother, Debbie continued to send the children with
several sets of their favorite hair ties, small multi-piece toys and extra layers of clothing. It soon became
obvious that she was not dressing the children well for the sake of their appearance or sending toys to
comfort them, but only so that she could continue to be assured that some small accessory or trivial
piece would be left behind.
Debbie educated the children daily about the importance of saying prayers and completing Bible
verse memory exercises for Sunday school, and so she naturally sent them to their father’s house with
religious story books and flash-cards. Again, such diligent spiritual training was perhaps good for
children, but in this context, the verses were nothing but passive-aggressive messages intended for the
father, not the children.
The flash cards would contain Debbie's bold, handwritten print with obscure verses such as, “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You are just like your fathers: always resisting the Holy
Ghost! Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?” (Acts 7:51-52) and, “The righteous man
wisely considereth the house of the wicked, and overthroweth the wicked for their wickedness”
(Proverbs 21; 12).
The children were clearly being used in the seemingly most innocent of ways to communicate adult
messages. These behaviors only served to further triangulate them in the continued conflict between
their parents, instilling feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and confusing fear.
Debbie also manifested behavior indicative of Parental Alienation Syndrome by sending periodic
innuendoes (not outright threats) of sexual abuse against her former husband. She was too
sophisticated to make formal allegations of physical or sexual abuse that could be discredited in court
upon investigation. Instead, Debbie only proposed innuendoes of allegations in messages left in the
children’s duffel bags, to keep Bob and his new wife on edge.
She made it well known that she had taught and frequently reinforced to the children the various
methods of “Child Lures” and about “Good Touches and Bad Touches”. She then let her ex-husband
know that she was concerned over her youngest child’s sexual displays in the bathtub and his
“inappropriate” references to genitalia. She knew better than to use even slight accusations concerning
their eight- or eleven-year-old daughters, and chose instead to pose questions of concern about their
four-year-old son. An older child can more readily discern fact from fiction, but a four-year-old can
easily become the object of suspicious incidents, and never even know the claims have been made.
These written “serious concern” messages were periodically presented to Bob with mention that
photocopies had been passed along to the mediator, or the attorney, or the therapist. One such
48
warning contained vague details of an incident suggesting that Bob and his wife had directly exposed
the children to pornographic movies in their home. However, no follow-up questioning was ever made
or attempted by Debbie or any flavor of investigator, and she never once tried to impeded Bob’s
physical access to the children for reasons concerning these issues, continuing to let the children stay
overnight with their father.
When Bob responded by rationally confronting Debbie on the phone about the unfounded and
potentially damaging false accusations, she refused to discuss the issue and hung up. A few days later,
a postcard arrived in the mail stating that they had no business that could not be discussed on a
postcard, and that all telephone calls, faxes or letters received from Bob would be disregarded without
being read. If he persisted, she would seek a restraining order.
Several months later, Debbie passed along a note to Bob (two pages, on full sized paper) informing him
that she had been taking their oldest daughter, Julie, to a therapist for her inappropriate aggressive
behaviors. She conveyed vague examples representing the problems she was having and insisted that
‘others’ had witnessed these behaviors as well.
Bob took it upon himself to contact the therapist, who honestly reported that he had not witnessed
anything out of the ordinary beyond ‘normal’ divorce adjustment difficulties. When Bob reminded the
counselor that he and Debbie had been divorced for over three years, the therapist decided that
perhaps it would be wise for him to interview Debbie again, at greater length.
Phone calls to the daughter’s school also revealed no complaints or evidence of any inappropriate or
aggressive behaviors. However one teacher did remark that the girl would leave her artwork at school if
she would be going to her father’s house that day. When the teacher asked her why she did this, her
response was that her mother had said her father had no interest in her papers.
Bob explained that this was not true. He asked the teacher to please encourage Julie to bring all of her
school papers to him. And, if she still seemed uncomfortable with that, perhaps the teacher could
suggest that she mail from school anything that she wanted to share with him, and he would supply
postage.
Debbie must have found out about this plan with the teacher, because it wasn’t long before all three
children began to bring several papers with them every time they went to their father’s house.
Further recent evidence of Debbie’s praxeological evil would include...
She would rage with foul swear words when on the phone with her former spouse - from the privacy of
her home with the children present in the room; and then would demonstrate complete tranquility at
each exchange of the children, where she always brought a witness to observe her amiable conduct.
She would continually take each child in to a doctor of some specialty with concerns over ‘unexplained’
allergies, stomach aches, sore genitals, ‘inappropriate’ behaviors, lethargy, or bruises - all claimed to
only surface after spending time at their father’s - and all found to be non-existent or inconclusive at
time of examination, or to be from normal causes.
She consistently complained to anyone who would listen about her financial difficulties resulting from
Bob having abandoned them (even though it was she that left in the middle of the night while he was on
a business trip, taking the children and leaving nothing behind but a good-bye note) and from so many
medical expenditures on three children, which of course resulted in endless motions to increase child
support.
The truth: Debbie had left Bob, she was receiving three-quarters of Bob’s income every month in child
support, she had just purchased a three bedroom house, and Bob paid 100% for full coverage medical
insurance for the children.
49
Periodically, (generally when she knew Bob had special family events planned), she would refuse
access to the children at the last minute, leaving a message on Bob’s answering machine just after she
knew he had already left to make the 2 hour drive to pick them up. Her reasons would be that one of
the children was sick, and it wouldn’t be fair for the other two to go if one couldn’t.
This continued to occur despite the fact that Bob repeatedly assured Debbie that he would gladly take
care of his children in sickness and in health, just like any parent would. Unfortunately, these episodes
were allowed to continue because Debbie knew she wouldn’t be held accountable legally. She had
already witnessed a clear bias in the court system that enforces child support, but not visitation.
She would reading her favorite stories to the children most every night, which she claimed were
Cinderella and Snow White. She loved to emphasize the ‘absent father’ and the ‘evil, wicked
stepmother’ characters, and even bought clothing and bed sheets for the children in these themes to
enhance their role-playing of the movies, when she would pretend to be Bob’s wife and scare the
children.
She would tell her children (and everyone else) that she was now Debbie Miller instead of Debbie
Sullivan because their daddy had taken her name away.
She sent computer generated address-change cards for the children to Bob and his elderly
grandparents with the heading of ‘Other’ circled, from a list of pre-printed choices including Friend,
Family or Other.
She incessantly whined to everyone about how awful it was that her children were so ill all the time
because of their father’s lack of care and responsibility, and how sacrificing and difficult it was to be so
attentive and to go to the doctor so often.
However, when the children were really sick or injured, if no one else was around or perceived to be
watching, Debbie showed little compassion or interest. She would give them minimal care and support,
almost as if she wanted them to get worse, or as if she really didn’t care.
Further history of all of Debbie’s qualifying behaviors should not be necessary for the reader to see her
as a truly praxeologically evil person. However, because praxeological evil cannot be identified based
on behaviors manifesting only around a single crisis - such as divorce in this case - it is essential that a
brief review of lifelong evidence exist.
Although Debbie certainly did many good things in her life, she also had a bleak history of generating
state university transcripts on her computer - supplying them with false credentials and forged
signatures - for her unemployed and almost illiterate younger brother.
A distant cousin of hers was a highly successful local politician, and Debbie would frequently use
innuendo threats of his power to manipulate and control the actions of her friends or any persons she
perceived as potentially damaging to her status.
She skillfully evaded hot check prosecution and medical debt collections by using a post office box and
an unlisted phone number. She transferred all of her personal bills into her husband’s name before she
moved out on him.
She twice cleverly created job openings for herself in a higher position by spreading malicious and
scandalous rumors about the people she sought to replace.
She periodically feigned illness in her children so she could have extra time off work under the recently
passed Family Medical Leave Act. Debbie once used this extra time off to drive all the way to another
state to visit her ailing grandmother. The purpose of this visit, however, was to pressure the dying
grandmother to loan her $10,000 to buy a car, so that she could have more reliable transportation for
50
her children.
She attempted to convince the friends of one ex-boyfriend that he was physically and emotionally
abusive to her. This was after he dumped Debbie for being too bitchy and constantly complaining about
his friends being around all the time when they were together. The truth was that after getting to know
Debbie better, the boyfriend was afraid to be alone with her, for fear that she would make just these
kinds of false accusations.
In junior high school, Debbie had falsely reported to a substitute teacher that her boyfriend had tried to
molest her in the hallway. This was one day after he broke up with her because she had cheated on
him sexually with another guy.
She had been suspended from high school her junior year for publicly protesting her ‘D’ grade in
physical education, which she received after it was suspected that she had forged her mother’s
signature on twelve ‘please excuse non-participation’ letters during one semester. When it was
supported by her mother that she indeed had forged the letters, Debbie’s response was that her mother
was abusive and didn’t care about her migraine headaches, and so she had no choice. Her mother, of
course, knew nothing about Debbie’s alleged headaches.
As Debbie got older, she would explain any romantic break-up to her friends by stating that the
insensitive guy couldn’t love her for who she was, and he hadn’t wanted to continue the relationship
because she had an ‘incurable female disease’ that precluded her from having children. She had also
told this to Bob. However, Debbie was pregnant within two months of her marriage to Bob, and
ultimately produced three healthy children.
She would lie on job applications, stating that she had more experience than she really had just to get
an interview. Once in the door, she was able to manipulate the quality and quantity of her knowledge by
demonstrating her abilities to learn quickly and by presenting many glowing letters of recommendation
from previous employers. While people had written letters for her, Debbie had re-written them and
embellished the remarks, in effort to enhance her superior capabilities.
She would periodically explain that she was late returning to lunch because she had stopped to help
someone with a flat tire or who had run out of gas, when in fact she had been shopping at the mall or
getting her hair fixed.
Hopefully by now Debbie’s behaviors should be representative of a praxeologically evil individual.
Everything she did was calculated and designed to make herself look like a perfect, good and
wonderful person and mother, while also making others either look worse than she, or appear to be
responsible for her misfortunes and victim status.
She shifted the blame or responsibility for anything and everything that could ever be perceived as
negative against her to someone or something else, even when there was no apparent need to do so.
Anything that was good or positive she took credit for, even if she had little or nothing to do with it.
She claimed that everything she did was ultimately for the greater good of her children and to protect
their best interests.
Though she would put on grand displays of affection and admiration, she seemed to have no real love
or empathy for anyone in her life, including her children. She always put her narcissistic needs in front
of everyone and everything else, regardless of the physical or emotional consequences to others.
It is our deepest hope that Debbie Miller will only continue her praxeological evil in these same or
similar ways. The fear of all persons familiar with this case is that she will soon begin to manifest her
evil by progressing into the court system with actual false allegations, or further through the medical
system with more severe claims of false physical and emotional conditions in her children.
51
Chapter 8
Ministers of Evil
“Be not too hasty to trust or admire
the teachers of morality,
they discord like angels,
but they behave like men.”
-- Samuel Johnson
The headline screamed:
“Minister says a man who looked just like him and drove a car just like his tried to kill his wife.
The wife says perhaps her attacker was a Demon. Police and many ex-parishioners are
skeptical.”
The case of Reverend Richard Rossi is surrounded by peculiarity. After his wife was severely beaten by
an attacker on the side of a road and she awoke from her three day coma, she stated, "I know the truth!
My husband was hitting me over and over. I can still hear the sound. I cried out to Jesus." Later she
recanted, saying at one point, “It could have been a demon in human form.”
Rossi told police that a man who looked just like and him drove a car just like his jumped into his wife's
car as the pair were looking at houses to buy. A Satanic cult might have been responsible for the
beating, he said.
As evidence of satanic involvement - and to demonstrate the minister’s innocence - church members
produced photographs of pentagrams scratched into the church driveway and “666” burned into a
nearby lawn.
As police sorted out the details, a plot of attempted murder and a bizarre community cover-up appeared
to be emerging. "The way I see it, if you're doing something for God, the enemy is always going to try to
stop you," said one parishioner. "Someone is definitely trying to stop what Rich is doing here."
The authorities had different ideas. The Reverend Richard Rossi Jr. was charged with attempted
murder, but in 1995 he was permitted to plead no contest to second degree aggravated assault, and
served 96 days in jail. It’s been said that upon his release he announced he was writing two
screenplays.
In another headline story, the Reverend John Canning went to visit an elderly couple who attended his
church and upon arrival at their house, he found both the man and woman dead. After discovering the
bodies, however, the minister apparently went to the beach and out to dinner with friends before
reporting their demise to the authorities.
52
Rev. Canning then prepared the funeral and dutifully eulogized the couple. He held on to a Bible as he prayed
over the ashes and announced, “I’m proud I could call them Mom and Dad.”
Rev. Canning then became a prime suspect in the murder, and was soon charged with beating and strangling
the 90-year-old couple. Law enforcement official Phil Ramer stated, “When it takes somebody a day to report
two dead bodies, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say who the suspect is.”
From the newspaper accounts, it appears as if the elderly couple, who had no children, had caught the minister
abusing the power of attorney they had given him, and he was stealing their savings. As Ramer said, “Of all
people in the world you should be able to trust, it’s your pastor. They couldn’t do it in this case, and he wound
up killing them.”
In the past few years, news accounts of fallen ministers have included famous clergymen such as Jim Bakker
and Jimmy Swaggart, and other scandalous cases involving alleged sexual abuse and murder.
A recent small-town Texas case resulted in suicide after a minister was accused of murdering his wife.
In Tennessee, the Contemporary Christian Music business was rocked with scandal. Just a week after being
named gospel music's artist of the year, popular singer Michael English was dropped by his record label.
English, who was married, returned his six Dove awards after confessing an adulterous affair and impregnating
his mistress, who was also married.
Tales of fallen or felonious ministers strike at the heart of sensationalism, primarily because these are the
people we least suspect of being immoral or criminal. Subsequently, whenever a ‘man of the cloth’ so blatantly
violates social norms, we are automatically directed to look for some form of evil, somewhere.
Although the story of Rossi clearly seems unbelievable, it often appears that we all really want to ‘blame it on
the Devil’. We desperately grasp hold of some supernatural theory, ruminate the possibilities over and over,
and then eventually grow to almost believe that maybe it really was a demon trying to kill his wife, disguised as
the pastor himself. As one defending church member stated, “We believe in healing and seeing people get
saved, and the Devil doesn’t like that.”
These kinds of rather bizarre and dramatic stories always peak our curiosity and alert our religious biases,
especially as we dwell on the subject of evil from any perspective. Careful examination of these examples,
however, will naturally demonstrate only some of them to fit our profile of the praxeologically evil person. Yet,
there are other cases, such as the one that follows, that may again remind us that praxeological evil is certainly
subtle and elusive enough to hide within a church.
While it is true that evil may lurk in the startling high profile tales that make the newspapers, poor decisions,
impulsivity and desperation are more likely to abound as the sources behind most evil scenarios. In reality,
praxeological evil is much more comfortable when closer to home.
The Reverend Larry Williams*
There once was a young couple named Dick and Sally who wanted desperately to be married. Dick was in the
computer consulting industry, and Sally, who had a wide and varied employment background, was not
currently working.
They had just moved back to town, and knowing few people other than their family, they were not quite sure
how to go about getting married. Then by sad chance, Sally’s great-uncle Fred died. At his funeral, they met
the presiding pastor who happened to be of the same faith as their own. The Reverend Williams hadn’t actually
known Uncle Fred, as Fred hadn’t attended the church for many years due to his ailing health and the pastor
had only been at the church for about a year. Nevertheless, he dutifully carried out the eulogy with great
sadness and compassion, as if he had known Fred all his life.
In fact, Rev. Williams’s presentation was simply compelling. Everyone present in the small chapel was
53
practically entranced as he shared messages from God with those who were left behind to suffer in family loss.
Dick and Sally were enamored with the Reverend’s skills and with the conscious effort he made to personally
meet, greet and console all who attended the funeral. He appeared to be a caring man who would welcome
anyone into his church with open arms, and since they were in the market for a new religious home, they
decided to visit his church the next Sunday.
The only worship service was in the late morning, which was appealing to Dick and Sally, and the following
Sunday they slept in as usual and then made their way to their new spiritual sanctuary. The sermon was
sensational. Reverend Williams, though not of a particularly rambunctious faith, was still very charismatic. He
delivered his messages about the importance of family values and spiritual leadership with fire and passion,
filling his audience with God’s promise of comfort and salvation.
Sally and Dick were only slightly disappointed with the remainder of the service. The members in the choir and
such weren’t as overly joyous in their presentations, but, they conceded, it certainly would be difficult for
anyone to match the conviction and drive of Reverend Williams.
The Reverend met Dick and Sally at the door upon their departure. He shook their hands firmly and thanked
them quite graciously for attending the service. He also made a point to again share his condolences over
Sally’s loss and volunteered to help the family in any way possible. Dick made mention that they had filled out
a visitor information card and suggested that perhaps he could call them sometime next week to discuss some
other matters. Reverend Williams assured them he would and then went on to bid farewell to the remaining
parishioners.
Dick and Sally were slightly overwhelmed by a whirlwind of emotions as they drove back to their home. Though
they felt that Reverend Williams’s enthusiasm was a little over-emotional, they were excited about finding a
new place to worship where they believed they would be accepted and supported. Everyone whom they had
spoken with seemed sincerely glad to meet them and encouraged them to come again, adding that though
their church was small, it was growing with the love of God and the blessings of their new pastor.
Dick, however, was the skeptic of the two, would remain reserved until he had a chance to speak with
Reverend Williams further. He told Sally that although the Reverend's performance was fantastic for exhibition
purposes, he was rather curious about his personal theological beliefs, and he was looking forward to the
opportunity to ask him a few questions.
Sally knew that Dick liked nothing better than to engage someone in a religious debate, and she passed off his
remarks by rolling her eyes. She then laughed as she chided Dick that at this point, she almost didn’t care what
Reverend Williams believed as long as he would marry them, and soon.
Sally had no idea how quickly soon might come. Their phone rang not three hours after they returned home.
Reverend Williams greeted Sally warmly and thanked her again for visiting his church. Sally was quite
surprised at this swift follow-up and was taken a bit off guard. When the pastor asked how he could be of
assistance to their family she stammered that perhaps Dick could explain more easily, and she handed the
phone off to him.
Dick excused Sally’s behavior to the sensitivity of the issues at hand and told Reverend Williams that perhaps
a face to face meeting would be more appropriate. The Reverend easily respected Dick’s concerns and
agreed, suggesting that he come right over.
Not exactly expecting company, Dick and Sally rushed about their house, picking up dirty laundry and dishes,
tidying papers and other messes. When the pastor arrived, they did their best to look relaxed and welcomed
him.
After some typical small talk Reverend Williams insisted that they call him Larry, explaining that in more casual
settings he preferred to ‘be one of the men he was walking among’, so to speak. Dick then began asking Larry
some rather frank questions about his ministry, and he responded accordingly.
He had gone to Seminary because he felt he needed to do his part to help make the world a better place, and
54
what better avenue to do so than through ministering at a church? He explained that he had once been the
pastor in a small town several hours away. When he was first appointed, the church was falling apart. The
previous pastor had been caught embezzling most every penny the church possessed. Subsequently, there
was no funding for building repairs or programs, and the majority of the parishioners had moved on to other
places of worship.
Larry’s assignment from the denomination was to do whatever he could to build the church back up to its
original membership and standing within the community. The leaders of the denomination had given him this
difficult task as his first job, he explained, because he had dared to openly disagree with a senior official during
his Ordination proceedings. Despite this, the elders of the ailing church had graciously accepted Larry and put
their faith in his profound energy and drive. They even promised to help personally with his salary and other
expenses until he could get the small church back on its feet.
Everything went according to plan. Larry worked day and night, knocking on doors and sending out letters
inviting anyone and everyone to visit his church and experience his presentations from God. It didn’t take long
before the fifty member congregation had grown to one hundred and fifty. With this increased membership,
there came increased revenues and Larry began implementing more social-programs. The denomination and
church elders were all very pleased with Larry’s results. Within two years, the congregation was holding steady
at about two hundred members. They had doubled his salary and were able to provide him with a car.
The problem, however, was that Larry’s wife didn’t seem quite as thrilled with his Godly endeavors as
everyone else was. She complained that Larry wasn’t home enough and that he didn’t do enough to help her
with their children. She just didn’t seem to get it, Larry explained. She couldn’t understand that he had been
chosen to do this work, and he needed to do it well.
He couldn't believe that his wife would accuse him - the man who's job it was to serve others - of neglect.
Despite his formally ascribed role of shepherd of the church flock and spiritual leader of his own household, he
had always made sure that they had the best accommodations and material things possible, and he always
included the children in his services as often as he could. He tried and tried to explain to her that ultimately,
what he was doing was not only for the benefit of his family, but for mankind as well. She, however, refused to
see these benefits, and at the beginning of his third year at the church, his wife of nine years divorced him,
taking their two children and moving 100 miles away back to her parent’s house.
Her actions did not help his career at all. No matter how liberal a denomination is, they still frown upon the
divorce of a senior pastor. Larry resigned as quietly as possible, explaining that his wife had apparently lost her
faith somewhere along the way. To save the church and himself from further embarrassment, he moved a
couple hours away to a new city and took a job as a community religion reporter for a newspaper.
He began attending a local church and sought counseling within the denomination, informing the elders and
counselors of exactly why he had left the church and the reasons behind his divorce. Larry was as active in his
new church as possible, keeping the goal in mind of somehow being recognized as good enough to eventually
restore his status as a pastor.
Two years later, his efforts paid off. When another local church of the same flavor lost their pastor to cancer,
there was really no one else available for the elders to turn to but Larry. They had not been able to convince
any other pastors to rescue their small, destitute house of worship.
Reverend Williams was game for the challenge and opportunity presented by their organizational difficulties.
He assured the elders that he would be able to implement a plan for spiritual growth and thus increase the
membership numbers in very little time. And, he was apparently able to convinced them that his wife was the
one who had done wrong by not supporting his Godly agenda, but that he had diligently pursued redemptive
counseling anyway, and he felt sure that he could fulfill all capacities as senior minister with no real difficulty.
And here Reverend Larry Williams was today. The church Sally and Dick had attended just a few hours earlier
had only sixty-seven members when Larry took over thirteen months ago. This Sunday there were ninety-eight
members in attendance, and five visitors.
55
Larry had repeated his miracles. He worked day and night. He went door to door. He gave speeches for
community groups and attended or facilitated local weddings and funerals. He created and personally
marketed several community oriented programs that helped draw people to the church, and they had so far
been successful.
He had even been able to convince the elders to allow him to purchase a new computer (complete with
monitor, a color printer, a scanner, and multiple software packages), totaling over $3500.00. These items
would help spiff up their weekly newsletters and program flyers, as well as aiding in maintaining the
membership and visitor databases. With the power of the computer, Larry explained, he would be able to
create and maintain an Internet website for the church, to more easily access and influence the younger
generation. Of course, he would keep the computer at home for convenience, since most of the up-dating work
would need to be done late at night.
Sally and Dick listened to Larry go on and on about his personal life and career. Larry was eager to answer
any question put to him (when there was an opportunity for anyone else to speak) and he relayed even his
past difficulties with no perceivable embarrassment or concern. His responses were animated and captivating.
No matter the flavor of feeling attached to the subject at hand, it was enhanced with movement and vigor. His
tales were so colorful and descriptive that they drew you in, almost as if you were actually in whatever situation
he was describing.
It seemed obvious from Larry's impassioned tale that his wife was completely responsible for their marital
demise, and that he was very bitter about his children being a good 100 miles away. It was on this subject that
Dick finally ventured to cut in. His child, Dick explained, was three hours away with his ex-wife, and so he could
presumably relate with Larry’s frustrations over making travel arrangements and not having easy access to his
children all the time.
Larry’s response was surprisingly pathetic in nature. He didn’t see his children very often, he sadly professed,
because his wife had moved them so far away, and it was just so difficult to find the time to drive there and
back for such short visits. Being the senior pastor of a church was far more demanding of a person’s time than
most would suspect. There were programs to develop and oversee, gatherings to plan; marketing lunches to
attend, and most importantly, sermon's to write.
He was sure that his children understood this fact though, and probably better than their mother had. He made
sure he talked to them at least every other week and he sent them letters and pictures once a month with their
child support checks. He had even put them on the mailing list for the church newsletters, so they would know
what their father did for the community.
Despite Dick and Sally’s internal feelings of disgust over Larry’s nonchalant, martyred explanations for not
seeing his children when he clearly could if he wanted to since he was essentially the boss, they went ahead
with their ultimate question for the Reverend.
Would he marry them, even though Sally was now four months pregnant, and Dick’s divorce had only been
final for three months and Sally’s for only seven months?
They humbly went on to explain that yes, they had an adulterous affair, which had subsequently been the
straw that broke the backs of both their already falling apart second marriages. And unfortunately, Dick’s
divorce had taken longer than expected, and Sally was pregnant before they could be married. They had
moved back here to be near family supports and closer to Dick’s child, as his wife had also moved after their
separation to be with her family.
They knew what they had done was wrong, and that they hurt many people in what some might call their
selfish pursuits. They had prayed and prayed, asking God to forgive them for the pain they had caused, and to
somehow please bless their new union. Although the road they had traveled had been rocky and not always
righteous, they felt that where they had arrived was where they should have been all along - they were finally
with the right partner. They wanted desperately to put as much past behind them as possible, and to move
forward together as a spiritually dedicated and legally joined man and wife.
56
So again, would Reverend Williams marry them, despite all of their sins and shortcomings?
The Reverend immediately responded that he was so sure this was the right thing for Dick and Sally to do that
he would graciously open the church for their wedding and perform the ceremony free of charge.
Sally asked how next Saturday was for Larry, and he replied it would be splendid. Dick asked how Larry would
sleep at night after blessing their dysfunctional union, and Larry said, "Like a baby!”
Dick and Sally were married the next Saturday, and never set foot in Larry’s church again.
Larry is a praxeologically evil minister. Dick and Sally are self-absorbed sinners, but certainly not evil.
He most likely will never make the headlines, won't oversell time-shares or be regarded by most who
encounter him as evil, but the Reverend Larry Williams does meet our criteria for identification as
praxeologically evil.
Although his story has been summarized, Larry's clear manifestations of praxeological evil are outlined in the
following paragraphs.
Evil is seen across a spectrum of situations in the Reverend Larry Williams’s life. He engages in behavior that
hurts others, with no feelings of guilt or remorse or personal responsibility.
Larry would never acknowledge that he was in any way responsible for the demise of his marriage, although
his self-serving and image projecting behaviors went defiantly against his wife's and children's repeatedly
expressed wishes. He blatantly used God as his righteous excuse for ignoring his family’s best interests,
knowing that for them to disagree would look like unchristian blaspheme.
Larry also flagrantly used his children to maintain his "perfect-victim" status. He deliberately chose not to
maintain the quality of relationship with them that he could, simply to perpetuate the pretense of his 'bad' wife
who had so inconsiderately ruined both his professional and personal life.
Many of the Reverend's behaviors that appear to be good, are actually behaviors that do harm others, even if
indirectly, though this may not be evident without first considering his underlying conscious motivations. This
again is the subtle quality of praxeological evil.
Larry's Internet and technology expenditure, though perhaps an excellent way to vaguely experience having
your name in lights, negatively impacts those who could be better reached and served without this high-tech
low-return marketing tool using up sparse church funds. Although poor or even selfish financial decisions are
not by themselves qualifications for praxeological evil, it would seem clear Larry's narcissistic belief is that the
church should buy him a computer, simply because he wants one.
Larry was motivated to cause trouble at his Ordination ceremony to be recognized and make a name for
himself, and to be assured of a difficult first assignment. This motivation was based on the emotion of fear. A
challenging situation would allow room for justifiable failure if things didn't go well, and at the same time
provide an opportunity for great praise and respect if he could actually make a struggling church grow.
Larry was motivated to perform an enthusiastic eulogy for a man he had never met simply to appear as the
great humanitarian, and to scout for potential church members.
Larry was motivated to marry Dick and Sally - and anyone else - so that they would join his church. He knew
that his actions would be perceived as a form of salvation, and he presumed the couples would feel indebted to
him and thus guilty if they did not adopt his church as their own. Any mainline denomination minister would
have had many, many resistant thoughts against marrying any couple under such circumstances. Larry,
however, was more concerned with raising his census and Sunday collections than with the letter of his
doctrinal law or the moral standards of his parishioners.
Everything Larry did was carefully designed to make him look 'good'. His ultimate goal was to be the "perfectvictim" in every way possible. He lived the role of the perfect successful minister with extraordinary talents who
had his career almost destroyed by his selfish, paganistic wife. He was the hard working, dedicated man of
57
God who was made to suffer the loss of his children because they had been moved so far away (as if he
couldn't get a job where they lived, or travel two hours at least every other week).
Larry Williams was, contrary to the presumed characteristics of his employment position, a loveless person.
This quality was evident by Larry's lack of empathy for his wife and children. He refused to accommodate or
even acknowledge the legitimacy of their feelings, wants, or needs. Instead, he proclaimed their emotional
pleas to be manifestations of betrayal and disrespect.
One might try to say that he showed 'unconditional positive regard' for Dick and Sally. But he didn't do it out of
Godly love to bless their union. He was loveless. He only wanted to add members to the church and make
himself look good.
Perhaps this lovelessness was the reason that his previous church's membership leveled off so quickly. In
spite of all the programs and marketing and overly dramatic sermons, most visitors weren't inclined to join or
commit to the church. Behind his stirring emotional appeals both at work and home, he was still considered by
many to be 'plastic' or insincere, and ready for his own cable ministry show.
Dick and Sally felt that Larry was trying too hard. He was almost pushy in his emotional attempts to
understand, to relate, and to be their friend and spiritual leader. He seemed to be acting out the part of a
concerned and loving minister, instead of just being real.
If Larry had truly loved and cared about his wife and children beyond their usefulness as presenting him as a
'family man', he would have felt remorse and at least conceded that they were justly suffering, and he would
have attempted to alter his schedule or delegate responsibilities among the church elders.
If Larry truly loved and cared about his children, he would have let nothing stand in the way of his access to
them after his divorce, and he would not use them as a tool for martyrdom.
If he had truly cared about the future of Dick and Sally - or any couple with such a disparaging past - one would
presume that he would have encouraged or even required pre-marital counseling and Christian couple's study
sessions to help insure and secure their spiritual and marital relationships, before committing to bless their
union.
Larry was extremely narcissistic. He felt that everyone should respect, admire and cater to him - simply
because he existed. He was a minister by choice, not by 'calling'. Calling on a pastor for business one day, he
recognized that ministers are considered to be somehow perfect and beyond reproach, so he gave up selling
insurance (before that he sold used cars) and enrolled in seminary.
Even after years of religious instruction and mentoring, Larry remained immune to the generally humbling
nature of his profession. Dick and Sally felt that Larry was extremely self-righteous and self-serving, even
though he gave pretense to doing all he did for God.
Every decision he made and the subsequent actions he took were well thought out and designed to boost and
protect his identity. He was angry with his wife's initial complaining behaviors and went to great lengths to
portray her as a selfish and ungodly person because he feared his own image of being perfect would be
blemished by a divorce. When his coercion didn't work, he simply let her go with the children, and used his
misfortune to his status advantage: he had sacrificed his children for the greater good of God.
The Reverend Larry Williams is a "shining" example of praxeological evil, and few would ever suspect it.
58
Chapter 9
Mr. Evil
“When you have got an elephant by the hind leg,
and he is trying to run away,
it’s best to let him run.”
-- Abraham Lincoln
Steve
Susie was the veteran receptionist at a small but growing home health agency which specialized in caring for
the elderly. She knew everybody and everything that went on within the walls of the agency. That position gave
Susie a lot of power, but she rarely used it. She just kept her eyes and ears open, and her mouth shut.
Two years ago, the independent agency was struggling to compete with the growing number of similar
businesses that were linked to big hospitals in town, and the owners were desperate to find good workers for
fair pay. Then, as if sent by an angel, in walked Steven Foster. He was a licensed Master’s level social worker,
who had recently left his previous employer because they were ‘uncaring, unprofessional’ people, and he was
ready to nobly serve the needs of his community for as much as they would pay. He seemed to be an earnest,
giving, and motivated young man of 29, and the owners decided that maybe he was just the spark their
company needed to get rolling again. They hired him on the spot for more salary than they would have liked,
and Steve became a clinical case worker.
Everyone loved Steve, from the owners and the staff nurses to the patients. He was very friendly and lively,
especially around the nurses. He seemed to have a great admiration for their professional abilities, noting that
his wife was also a nurse who now stayed at home with their two children. He frequently found himself with
quite an audience in the break room, swapping outrageous war stories about everything from patients to
spouses.
Within a few months, he seemed to have a good feel for this company and the difficulties the owners were
facing. He began to work extra long hours, making special visits to ailing patients and even venturing out on
some marketing excursions during his lunch hours.
The owners were really beginning to notice a difference in their census, and they believed that Steve’s extra
efforts were behind the turn around. He graciously accepted the over-time pay they forced upon him, but
brushed off their praising acknowledgments as if his actions were no big deal, insisting that he was only trying
to increase his livelihood, and any conscientious employee would do the same.
In less than a year the company had risen from the dead, and Steve had worked his way up to a supervisory
position. This increased his salary substantially and added flexibility to his schedule to further his marketing
endeavors. He was popular as ever with the other staff who enjoyed his playful charisma and admired his
apparent business skills. He even began to engage in some ‘charity’ work, making time during the day to visit
semi-professionally with one of the nurses who was having trouble with her marriage.
59
Another six months passed and the agency was really beginning to make a name for itself in town.
Seeing the need to add a few employees, Steve suggested that the owners hire his wife, as their
children were starting school, and she was feeling ready to return to work part time. The owners found
Lucy to be overly competent and she started immediately, arranging her work schedule between school
hours.
The other staff tried very hard to make Lucy feel welcome, despite their helpless bias stemming from
the frequent disparaging remarks Steve had made about her over the past eighteen months. They had
met her on a few occasions at company gatherings, and she seemed to be nice, but also very distant
and reserved. This of course had somewhat substantiated his break room jokes about her moodiness
and ‘temper-tantrums’, painting the picture of a woman who was prone to create a family crisis from the
littlest of events. They were careful however not to divulge Steve’s gossip, and instead made attempts
at chit-chat by commenting how proud she must be of her husband’s career accomplishments and how
they must have a really wonderful marriage since Steve was such a charming and caring person.
Lucy would smile and agree passively, but she made no effort to perpetuate these conversations. She
was very social and congenial on other subjects, but whenever Steve was the topic at hand, she would
become quiet and excuse herself if possible. The nurses began to think that Steve had been right and
even started their own gossip suggesting that Lucy was jealous of Steve, and that she was ungrateful
and didn’t deserve such a great husband.
Our friend Susie, however, saw things differently. Susie, unlike the other staff, was privy to Steve’s
appointment calendar. She took his phone calls. She recorded his mileage log entries. She saw the
field visitation schedule Steve created for Lucy. She recorded his expense account reports. Susie had a
good idea why Lucy didn’t rave about her husband the same way everyone else did.
About four months after Lucy started at the agency she stormed out of the office one day, hiding teary
eyes with her sunglasses. Conveniently it was Susie’s lunch hour, and having suddenly decided that
enough was enough, she followed Lucy out the door and insisted that they go have a woman-to-woman
talk over brownie fudge sundaes.
Lucy fell apart before they left the parking lot and began spilling her marital story. As Susie had
suspected, Steve had been having affairs with women all over town. It seemed that the home health
agency’s business had received so many referrals because Steve had been so busy making hot and
heavy contacts. He wasn’t at all careful to hide his behaviors from his wife, and he would even ask Lucy
to remove lipstick stains from his shirts. When Lucy would confront Steve, he would either tell her she
was crazy and jealous, or he would blatantly inform her that he wouldn’t have to find other women if she
would only love him and respect him more.
Lucy informed Susie that Steve had been fired from his previous job for a combination reasons,
including making passes at the staff and for suspicion of fraudulent insurance claim filings. It appeared
that Steve had found an ingenious way to make himself look gifted in the marketing position he had
weaseled himself into by staying after hours and altering patient records to reflect more services
rendered, thus increasing the amount to be billed to the insurance companies, thus increasing the
agency’s revenues. When questioned, Steve had exploded at the management, accusing them of not
respecting his talents and creativity, or appreciating all the good he had done for them. He also said it
wasn’t his fault that the foolish women who worked there thought he was coming on to them, he was
just a nice, sensitive person who only responded to the nurses’ affections because he didn’t want to
appear snooty.
Susie learned that Steve would brag to his friends about how the agency wouldn’t survive without his
superior marketing skills, because the owners were incompetent fools. She learned that the nurse
whom Steve had ‘counseled’ had quit working for the agency after her affair with Steve had almost
completely destroyed her marriage. The nurse had never told anyone of her real reason for leaving, of
course, because she was embarrassed and didn’t think anyone would believe her anyway, since
everyone thought Steve was such a great guy.
60
When the nurse accidentally ran into Lucy at a church dinner one Sunday, she was so guilt-ridden that
she fell apart and told the whole story. She apologized again and again, swearing that she had never
meant for anything to happen, but that Steve had so skillfully seduced her through ‘therapeutic’
methods of emotional release that the next thing she knew they were having sex in the office after
work.
When Lucy had threatened to turn Steve in to his professional licensing board, pack her and the
children’s bags and divorce him after that affair, he had laughed at her. He said that she was being
over-reactive and selfish as usual. He challenged that the licensing board had nothing to do with his
sex life after hours, and insisted that the nurse had attacked him because he was so sensitive to her
needs and her husband was just as unloving as Lucy was, and they had needed each other at that
moment to feel whole again.
He berated her for being an impertinent, disrespectful wife who never considered his needs personally
or professionally, and now she was even threatening to desert him just as he was working on getting a
marketing director job with another company. Did she really think that he wanted to sleep with all those
women? Of course not, but he had to in order to further his career and support his family. He was
disappointed that Lucy would dare consider abandoning her wifely duties of taking care of his children,
keeping the house nice for his guests, and ultimately just making him look good at social events, church
and work, after all he had sacrificed for her. The least she could do as his wife was to support him in
achieving his goals, which ultimately would benefit the family.
Why did she think he had hired her at the agency? Because he thought she was a good nurse or could
get a flexible schedule? No. He hired her so that he could protect her by knowing what she was doing
and where she was during the day, because he was afraid that she was getting mixed up with too many
whiny, men-hating housewives who could be a bad influence on her.
And, he determined, his suspicions were correct. He couldn’t believe that Lucy would so flagrantly
discount the children’s needs for a wholesome family system by casually calling for a separation over
matters that were so trivial or were her own fault. He warned that if she filed any papers, she would get
nothing. No house, no car, no money, not even the children, because he could use his professional
status to discredit her mental stability and parenting abilities. And, he added, she would have to live
with the guilt of destroying his life.
Susie told us that Lucy had indeed gone ahead and filed for divorce. Susie characterized Steve Foster
as a narcissistic control-freak who treated women poorly. We agree, and add that he’s also
praxeologically evil.
It is difficult with this format and with space constraints to fully convey all the things about a person that
make him or her diagnosable as evil. In this case, however, we can see that:
Steve’s personality characteristics lean toward malignant narcissism and antisocialism, as evidenced
by his need to feel superior and respected, and by his blatantly fraudulent and immoral behaviors,
without regard or concern for consequences or negative impact on others.
His primary motivation is to perpetuate his role as the good leader, the excellent businessman, and the
suffering-yet-perfect husband.
His emotions are overly intense when he’s happy, mad, or seductive, as the scenario may require. He
obviously lacks empathy for his wife, children and others, and only sees them as tools for manipulation
and role supporting. Others who encountered him reported his demeanor as 'plastic' or 'ready for a
television soap opera'.
His behaviors were clearly designed to make himself look like the wonderful person he wanted to be,
and to make others look incompetent or foolish.
61
Further investigation into the history of this case reveals the historical pattern of praxeological evil.
He frequently harassed wait staff at restaurants and demanded special treatment, while giving the
pretense of being understanding and empathetic with their efforts to grant his wishes; then he would
stiff them on their tips, and tell others later that they had been incompetent or disrespectful.
He only played with his children when there were witnesses to impress; the rest of the time, he
generally considered them a nuisance and either ignored them or said that he was busy and made
them play quietly in another room.
The running jokes at Steve’s undergraduate college were that his best friend was the mirror he kept in
his coat pocket, and, if Steve were ever kidnapped, he would soon be either released or killed for
talking about himself too much.
After his graduate school departure, Steve was sent an anonymous pair of shoes with cleats and a
heart-shaped card attached that read, “Stepping on people makes a more lasting impression when you
can stab them in the back at the same time.”
Steve’s first fiancé dumped him after she found out that he was only marrying her because her
grandfather was quite wealthy. He threatened to have her committed to a psychiatric ward and marry
her anyway if she called the wedding off or told anyone of his plan. Her family threatened worse, and so
he dropped the issue and never saw her again.
He had no apparent sentimental values, and would throw away or get rid of anything that was not
perceived to be ‘useful’ to him, including old family pictures, artwork gifts from his children, and
miscellaneous items from his past that most people would hold onto. He would, however, keep anything
that could be used against others or could be used to elevate or substantiate his personal or
professional status, such as ‘thank you’ letters from patients, the early-years love letters from his wife,
and running documentation of the money his wife spent on trivial things.
Resolution for this case of praxeological evil was remedied by Steve himself - at least for Lucy and her
children. He realized that Lucy was seriously taking him and his dirty laundry to court and that his
agency was about to fire him for insurance fraud, and might even suggest prosecution. Apparently
unable to handle this kind of negative exposure on both personal and professional fronts, Steve
decided to take the second easiest way out. The morning after he saw Lucy returning to work with
Susie, he feigned illness and called in sick. After his wife and children had left the house, he
disappeared, never to be seen again.
We can only imagine that he is somewhere in another state, manipulating women, defrauding
companies for personal gain, and taking notes; all disguised as an angel of light.
62
Chapter 10
Resolving
Praxeological Evil
“When you see a snake,
never mind where he came from.”
--W. G. Benham
For every evil under the sun,
there is a remedy or there is none.
If there be one, try and find it,
if there be none, never mind it.”
-- Old English Rhyme
The solution to evil has been debated in theological and social circles for years. The focus of our
writings, however, has been on the identification and understanding of praxeological evil. When we first
embarked on this task, we were asked by a professional colleague to explain our answers or solutions
to the problem of praxeological evil. We admitted that we had identified some fairly sound thoughts and
experiences demonstrating that change is perhaps possible with this population, but we still lacked
definitive answers.
For us, developing the identifying criteria for praxeological evil became a solution in it’s own way.
Understanding that praxeological evil stands alone allows us to embark on solutions apart from the
limitations of the medical model, and apart from religious salvation. Understanding the difference
between praxeological evil and personality disorder and between praxeological evil and moral sin
allows us to focus on interventions that accomplish three goals:
1) Ownership of Behavior
2) Ownership of Responsibility
3) Ownership of the Need for Restitution
63
In counseling and through non-professional relationships we have found that true change only occurs
when the above three conditions are experienced in an individual’s life. The first goal encompasses the
praxeologically evil person’s recognition of the destructive behaviors themselves, and then also their
willingness to accept that they actually committed these behaviors. The second goal, responsibility,
concerns an individual’s ownership of an internal locus of control and autonomy to make change,
meaning that they must recognize and accept that they have conscious, voluntary control over their
behaviors. The third goal involves the praxeologically evil person ceasing their destructive behavioral
manifestations through healthy and positive change.
In the counseling or helping process, any work with clients that does not put forth these precepts as the
primary agenda for intervention will undoubtedly fail. Likewise, psychodynamic approaches or other
schools of thought concerning therapeutic methods of counseling will most likely falter at producing
lasting change within the praxeologically evil person.
We have never encountered any individual who was truly helped by any technique of psychiatry,
ministry or the helping professions - without completing these three stages of ownership. Never have
we experienced lasting positive change in our own lives without this process in action. Behavior doesn’t
simply change and motivations are not inherently altered without the ownership of these elements.
Unfortunately, no street drug or pharmaceutical intervention can arrest praxeological evil, and no
exorcism of evil spirits will alter the evil that exists in certain human beings.
Throughout this publication we have focused on and dissected the four primary dimensions of the
praxeologically evil person: self-serving motivations, destructive behaviors, loveless emotions and
malignantly narcissistic personality. Impacting the behaviors, however, is still our paramount concern,
for this aspect is most injurious to others.
Ownership of Behavior
Owning up to one's own behaviors would seem like a simple task, and for the healthy person,
admission of personal faults or wrong-doings is relatively easy (though perhaps embarrassing). At the
core of the praxeologically evil person is the characteristic of preserving their perceived status and role
- through whatever means necessary and at any cost. Subsequently, lies of denial concerning their
behaviors are common.
But unlike most clients, this lying is not about straightforward denial of being caught engaged in a
specific action. Instead, their lies convey and substantiate the essence of whom they purport to be, and
thus protect against the discovery of their motivations. Often, the praxeologically evil person has lied
and denied so much that they have come to almost believe their own deceptions.
Those of us working with substance abusers and criminal justice clients have seen countless people
confronted with piles of evidence documenting their criminal or drug using behaviors, including
laboratory tests and eyewitness accounts, only to have them look us straight in the eye and completely
deny reality. Unfortunately, these kinds of people will likely never be inclined to make positive
therapeutic changes, for the first stage of the ‘change process’ is always ownership of personal
behavior.
“I did it,” is a statement that must escape their lips. This simple admission is all that is necessary for
change to begin, yet the praxeologically evil person is rarely - if ever - able to muster the words.
Denial is strong, but manipulation is often stronger. A praxeologically evil person may move to a point
where they actually will own their physical behaviors, if this act will in turn enhance some other facet of
their life. However, they may continue in their refusal to accept conscious responsibility for these
behaviors.
64
This is a different problem from the first. Ownership of committing a behavior is all that is necessary to
begin the process of change. However, that solitary or constrained admission still leaves room to lay
the blame of causation or responsibility for the behavior on others, i.e., “Yes, I did it, but only because
you did that. If you hadn’t done that, I wouldn’t have had to do this”.
Ownership of Responsibility
In dealing with the praxeologically evil person, part of this ‘ownership’ regimen also includes owning up
to three other common characteristics. They must not only admit their physical behaviors, but also their
underlying motivations, dominate personality traits, and their emotional lovelessness.
Ownership of responsibility implies that the person must admit they have a conscious choice or
voluntary motivational process governing all of their behaviors, and they have purposefully chosen the
negative or detrimental route over the positive or good.
Without this all-inclusive ownership of responsibility, a person cannot clearly see who they are and
where they have been, and thus are unable to complete the third step of restitution. In Alcoholics
Anonymous, a popular admission at the beginning of meetings has become, “I am alcoholic, and my
problem is Richard.” This statement, a twist on the standard greeting familiar to most, is an example of
self-recognition or ownership of the manifestations of their behaviors, motivations, personality and
emotions.
In any helping relationship, ownership of responsibility - complete acceptance of internal controls - is
perhaps the most difficult area to produce results in. This concept goes against all basic narcissistic
personality characteristics and beliefs of the praxeologically evil person. It is possible for these people
to own behaviors when directly confronted, but the blame-shifting or denial of conscious responsibility is
probably more intense with the praxeologically evil than with any other population.
Debbie Miller owned the behavior of forging her brother’s records when confronted with supporting
evidence, but then claimed she only did it because of his pressure on her, and for society’s failure to
give a felon a clean slate. Her stated motivation lacks personal responsibility, while still containing the
element of owning the behavior.
Sex offenders will occasionally admit to their actions of perpetration, but will then frequently place the
blame on the victim. One man in his mid-forties owned up to the fact that he had repeatedly engaged in
oral sex with his eight-year-old stepdaughter, but insisted he did it only because she had wanted him to
make her feel good. A news-making rape case in the late eighties was defended in court on the basis
that the provocative dress of the victim indicated she wanted to be raped, beaten and left for dead.
While taking neither the nature or nurture side of any argument, it is plausible that praxeological evil
can be found to exist on a multi-generational level. Like the abusive mother who was abused by her
mother - who was abused by her mother - the praxeologically evil person simply may not know any
other manner of living. Thus, it’s theoretically possible that ownership of responsibility may sadly come
in the context of, “I did it... because it was all I knew how to do.”
This statement, although appearing to be more of a blame-shifting response or another excuse than a
true confession, is the still acceptable during the first stages of owning responsibility. The somber
reality is that this may actually be the real reason that some praxeological evil people do some of the
things they do, but certainly not all. Nevertheless, they still voluntarily chose to engage in their evil
actions rather than seeking or creating other healthy options, and they should still be held accountable
for this lack of responsibility.
“I did it... Because I chose to do it,” or, “I did it... Because I wanted to gain accolades from the
congregation to build my esteem,” or, “I did it... Because I wanted to make them understand how
valuable and important I believe I really am,” are more accurate demonstrations of conscious
65
responsibility, painting a clearer picture of their underlying motivations.
Moving the praxeologically evil person to this point of expression, however, is certainly a difficult proposition.
Unfortunately, as with most therapeutic situations, it’s a challenge that will likely produce few successful
results. Nevertheless, anything is possible, and so it should be attempted.
Ownership of the Need for Restitution
A significant portion of the praxeologically evil population has at one time or another been confronted and
owned their behaviors and their conscious responsibility, yet remain in a state of evil. These individuals
recognize the hurt they have caused and their role in human suffering, but simply refuse to change. What they
still lack is ownership of their personal need for restitution.
Bill Wilson, the founder of AA, is known for his belief that a person’s true freedom comes only through
submission. This is a concept that the praxeologically evil person emphatically rejects from the core of their
being. It’s completely against their lifelong pervasive narcissistic personality traits. However, it’s a concept that
they must accept - if they are ever to make lasting changes.
What type of restitution must be made?
In the work of counseling and criminal justice, clients consumed with fears concerning their fate will frequently
ask this question. This is truly the hardest of the three ownership areas to fulfill, and where many
praxeologically evil persons fail in their attempts to make healthy life changes.
If you steal someone's hubcaps you should make restitution by taking them back or paying the owner for new
hubcaps. But the damaging work of the praxeologically evil person is often far more subtle and indirect than
stealing car parts. And more often than not, underneath the short list of things they may actually admit to or
have been confronted over, there are many, many other evil acts that no one knows about but themselves.
Because their behaviors were so elusive or discrete, direct restitution is not always possible.
The final problem with direct restitution is that the victim is often better served by having no further contact at
all with the perpetrator. How many sexual abuse victims really want to see the perpetrator again? They have
been so violated and shamed that for the offender to apologize is beyond unacceptable to many victims. What
most victims of any crime (moral or legal) really want is simply for the perpetrator to go away, stay away, and
never re-offend against anyone, ever again.
The key to making restitution is in making lasting personal change. Without this permanent change, complete
restitution cannot and will not exist, no matter how many times they say they are sorry. Returning stolen
hubcaps is fine and good, but if the perpetrator’s motivations, emotions and personality traits are not
consciously changed, they might engage in the behavior of stealing them again - or worse.
Real restitution is turning from consciously induced entropy and towards nutrogeny, or from the lifestyle of
tearing things down to one that builds things up. True restitution involves changing core conscious motivations,
learning to experience loving others and being loved, and ceasing all destructive behaviors.
True restitution will only occur in a fraction of those who are truly praxeologically evil.
66
Chapter 11
Tools For Managing Evil
Do not wait; the time will never be "just right."
Start where you stand,
and work with whatever tools
you may have at your command,
and better tools will be found as you go along.
— Napoleon Hill
This book has focused on the identification of evil from a praxeological or all-encompassing perspective. We
have intentionally avoided much religious debate because the primary issue for those working with the evil
person in clinical settings or human services profession is not 'why does evil exist' or 'where evil comes from'.
The central questions often avoided are, "What does evil really look like?" and, “What can I do about it?”
We believe spiritual solutions for client problems do exist, and for any eternal resolution of the problem of evil,
religious answers are perhaps very real answers. But when faced with evil in professional settings and in many
life situations where religious solutions cannot be sought or implemented, the problem remains of how to
manage evil within limited resources. For the crisis counselor, the question is not, "Why is this person evil?"
Rather, the question is, "What am I supposed to do with them during the next 30 minutes?"
For those accustomed to thinking of evil only in context of religious ideas, our solutions may seem hopeless or
pointless. And perhaps they are, from a religious perspective. But, for those who separate the constructs of
praxeological evil from religious or behavior based evil, we will offer some practical ideas in an effort to answer
the question of how to manage the evil that impacts us on a pervasive human level.
These ideas, like our criteria, might impact some clients some of the time. They are not the eternal solution to
the problem of evil. But if you are faced with the praxeologically evil next-door neighbor, client, or in-law, some
of these solutions may help both yourself and that person to manage through today, so that there will be an
opportunity to experience the all important spiritual solutions tomorrow.
Redemption
“I once was lost,
but now am found...”
-- Amazing Grace
Is it possible for the praxeologically evil person to become good?
We know that many people who commit wrongful actions or exercise poor judgment can often learn from the
their experiences and change, but can the person we have defined as praxeologically evil ever truly change?
67
One of the frustrations of working with the personality disordered individual in psychotherapy is the limited
success at producing lasting change. This is because as helpers, we are asking the person with a disordered
personality to completely violate and alter the core of their being, which they have known essentially since
birth. In a sense, we’re trying to teach old dogs new tricks.
The praxeologically evil person is even more impaired from this perspective than the personality disordered
client, simply because they have been consciously choosing to re-enforce their lifestyle for so very long.
Can a Debbie Miller or a Reverend Williams change? The answer, ideologically, is yes, but perhaps only
through ‘redemption’.
From a religious or theological perspective it is clear that redemption can be and is achieved. As a spiritual or
religious concept, the experience of redemption follows an individual’s recognition of personal sin and the
subsequent receiving of God’s grace. Most readers will be familiar with someone who had once lived a
destructive or self-defeating lifestyle, and then changed radically for the better after an encounter with God or
through some religious experience. Religious television programs beam these stories of redemption into our
homes each day, and the familiar refrain of the gospel song "Amazing Grace" rings out as we hear the
personal triumphs of many.
Aside from a religious experience, however, can redemption really be had?
Is there a way to create a 'redeeming experience' for the praxeologically evil person, and move them from evil
to goodness?
When attempting to answer these questions it’s important to address two points. First, although praxeological
evil itself is not defined by religious or moral principles, the hope for religious or moral redemption should never
be discounted in our interactions with praxeologically evil people. These profound experiences do seem to
impact the lives of many and can apparently almost instantaneously create a 180 degree turnaround in the
lives of some malfeasant people. Secondly, we believe psychological redemption is also possible, but that this
concept is not the same as religious or moral redemption.
Although the modern world - and especially the disciplines of psychiatry and counseling - has attempted to
distance itself from the religious aspects of life, preferring instead to take a ‘scientific’ approach to resolving
human problems, we cannot blatantly deny or avoid the first tenet. Profound spiritual experiences do in fact
impact people. For this reason, even those working or living with praxeologically evil people will diligently
continue to refer the ‘hopeless’ to 12-step support groups, community institutions and churches, and
encourage prayer and meditation.
'Psychological redemption' is a term we will use for defining approaches to impact praxeological evil. These will
differ from religious redemption, in that no eternal or ‘heavenly’ result is guaranteed or even presumed, even
when they produce incredible change in an individual’s lifestyle.
We have heard it said that, “Alcoholics Anonymous can’t get you to Heaven or keep you out of Hell, but it can
keep you sober enough to make up your own mind!” Likewise, our ideas promise no resolution to the
theological debate over the eternal consequences of praxeological evil.
Instead, psychological redemption - in theory - can perhaps allow the praxeologically evil person an avenue for
recovery by creating or enhancing healthy personality traits, reducing the friction intentionally caused in
relationships, and stopping the characteristic entropy. Through temporary healthiness or management of evil,
opportunity for spiritual redemption may occur.
We believe that psychological redemption can take place within the praxeologically evil person. We believe
their negative actions, motives, behaviors and destructive emotional chaos can be arrested, and lasting healthy
change can occur.
68
One of the frustrations at this point, however, is that despite this ideological hope, reality tells us again and
again that most people - praxeologically evil or not - will not change. (Notice that we have chosen the phrase
‘will not change’ over ‘do not change’, emphasizing again the consciousness of their choice to continue with a
destructive lifestyle.)
Those engaged in couples counseling know that most marriages they encounter in the clinical setting will end
in divorce. Law enforcement officials know that the criminal will most likely re-offend, despite countless
programs and opportunities presented in effort to reduce recidivism. Most substance abusers will relapse, and
most at-risk youth will struggle with impulsive and destructive behaviors.
Helpers in these lines of work are comforted not by helping most of the people most of the time, but instead by
impacting some people, some of the time. The real joy of the helping professions is found in seeing a few
happy, self-directed individuals going on to have a positive impact on others. This joy remains true, even after
the helper has seen hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of individuals fail at making necessary life changes.
Realizations such as this will help you preserve your own sanity, as you go about the difficult task of impacting
praxeological evil or of attempting to create healthy change in a society filled with moral evil and failure.
Christ said, “For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter into it. But
small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few will find it” (Matthew 7:13). The
application of this statement to the work of the helping professions is clear.
Therefore, for those perceived as impossible to impact spiritually, and because of our need to also meet
praxeological evil with psychological redemption so that change can occur on a practical or more human level,
we have offered four additional methods of intervention that will not only serve to help the individual
characterized as praxeologically evil, but that will also keep communities and individuals safe, despite their
lack of conscious change.
Education
"First you have to learn something,
then you can go out and do it."
-- Mies van der Rohe
Confrontation is a strategy used to impact praxeological evil since the early traditions of psychiatry. Carl Jung
is said to have confronted an individual with the “shadow parts and underdevelopment of Consciousness.”
But who doesn’t fear confronting evil of any kind? Evil is a power we have been taught to avoid. We are even
pre-programmed to ‘fight or flee’ evils. The act of confronting praxeological evil would bring it into the heart of a
relationship and open it’s ugly head for all to see. It would be seemingly unnatural for us to confront
praxeological evil.
But this strategy is exactly what is in order at times.
Good confrontation, however, is not about being meaner or louder than the praxeologically evil person.
Instead, it is about education, or communicating data.
Education is also one of the keys to creating solutions for consciously induced entropy. Education can teach
people how to build up instead of tearing down, and it can teach the praxeologically evil person that new ways
of living do exist, and show how to live them.
Throughout this book, we have avoided detailed discussion concerning the cause of praxeological evil,
because to engage in endless debates over theology, biology, nature, and nurture would surely cloud our
ability to form practical solutions to the problem on a daily basis.
69
But one fact is clear: people only know... what they know. Praxeological evil is often all a person has
experiential knowledge of, whether by choice or circumstance.
As demonstrated throughout history, families tend to replicate themselves. Therefore, great potential exists for
praxeologically evil individuals to have praxeologically evil family members in preceding generations.
The grandmother who beats her child into submission subsequently teaches her daughter to beat her child
when submission is desired. That daughter will often go on to beat her child when submission is required.
Why did all of these mothers beat their children? Because it was the only thing they ever learned to do when
feeling a need to gain control. The grandchildren who perpetuate this abuse simply believe that it’s normal for a
mother to gain power and control through physical brutality, because on a multi-generational basis, it’s what
they have ever experienced.
In some poor urban neighborhoods, the local boy makes good by becoming a scholar and fair businessman,
despite the difficult hurdles of poverty. But in more instances than not, the self-defeated adolescent observes
the overwhelming destitution, drugs and prostitution in his limited world each day on his way home from
school, and subsequently joins the gang. This is simply the only way he knows to exist and survive in his
impoverished community.
Likewise, some praxeologically evil people probably have substantial or significant evil role models, and they
most likely know no other manner of existence.
A great example of the perpetuation of good and evil on a multi-generational level exists in the cases of Max
Jukes and Jonathan Edwards, two Mayflower descendants.
Max Jukes was an atheist who lived a Godless life. He married what has been described as a Godless woman,
and since then has had 540 descendants traced in his family tree. 310 relatives died as paupers, 150 were
criminals, seven were murderers, 100 were alcoholic, and half the women were prostitutes.
The public sector spent a quarter of a million dollars on maintaining Max Jukes and his descendants through
the ensuing decades.
Jonathan Edwards, a minister who lived at the same time, has had 1,394 known descendants. 13 become
college presidents, 65 were professors, 3 became US senators and 100 became lawyers. 60 become
physicians, 75 were military officers, 100 became ministers or missionaries, 60 were successful authors, 80
became public officials and one became vice-president of the United States.
This family cost the government nothing in public expenditures.
There is no doubt that the praxeologically evil person knows there is a difference in the world between good
and evil. But, they must first be educated and convinced that goodness can exist within them, and that this
personal quality can be a reality for them, producing lifelong happiness.
Unfortunately, much like trying to tell the kid making $200.00 a day selling crack that he would be happier
working at the fast food burger store for $4.75 per hour, our successes will be far and few between.
Lack of success in our education efforts however, does not relieve us from the responsibility of providing it to
the praxeologically evil person in our lives. They must be educated, again and again, just as the student who
can’t seem to get the fundamentals of algebra must be helped until he is proficient.
From this education and subsequent realization and acceptance, often for the first time on a multi-generational
level, a decision to remain praxeologically evil or to embark on the difficult task of redemption can occur.
Only when individuals consciously know the benefits of choosing good over evil can change occur. Teaching
growth and health over entropy may be a challenge, but it’s essential. Training individuals to recognize the
long-term consequences of their actions allows the perpetrator of evil to develop a sense of connectedness,
and to realize a new and radically different manner of living.
70
Experience
"Do not wait for extraordinary
circumstances to do good;
try to use ordinary situations."
-- Jean Paul Richter
The praxeologically evil person not only needs to know the differences made in life between choosing
good over evil, but they also must experience the antithesis of their evil firsthand. Knowledge may be a starting
point, but it is never sufficient to make change. Action must also occur. And with action comes risk. Without
practical experiences surrounding a new endeavor, lasting change will likely fail.
Think of the first time you began the process of making a life change. Perhaps you decided to go back to
school, and took just one course to test the waters. Or, perhaps before embarking on a new career full time
you consulted with others in the field, read up on it at the library, or tried the vocation out through a temporary
agency.
Risk-management applies not only to large corporate decisions, but to smaller individual life changing events
as well. The first time someone plunged off the bungee jump platform, they probably watched for a long while
and asked those who had already experienced this thrilling adventure what it was like. Maybe they even
watched for days before deciding to take the plunge. This is about gaining experience and decreasing risk to
help ensure success, one step at a time.
Change, if it is ever to occur, must be perpetuated within the context of new experiences. The evil person has
most likely been surrounded in an intimate way by other evil people, or has isolated themselves from regular or
'normal' people. Their relationships with non-evil individuals have primarily existed simply to meet their
narcissistic needs. Your relationship, professional or personal, may provide the evil person with opportunity for
interactions with someone who cannot be exploited, or who does not share similar characteristics. (Although
the field of therapy is ironically another where we could find an abundance of praxeologically evil
practitioners.)
There once was a mother deeply concerned over her daughter's choice of husband. Now that the girl was
pregnant, the mother feared the worst and saw no way out for her daughter, who failed to see anything wrong
with her praxeologically evil husband.
Terrified, the mother begged for help. She had driven a wedge between herself and her daughter by refusing to
allow the husband into her home. She was pained by her daughter’s decision to stick up for her man, and
feared loosing a relationship with the up-coming grandchildren over to her daughter’s refusal to head her
warnings.
Since the daughter was an adult, this mother had no authority to control her daughter’s actions, even though
she was correct about her son-in-law’s evil characteristics. But the advice given to this mother was to not
ultimately lose the battle by losing the grandchildren just to validate her opinions, nor by trying to force change
through redemption by waiving the Bible in his face at every opportunity. Instead it was suggested that she
cautiously show genuine love and goodness to her daughter’s husband (even though it might pain her to do
so), and allow him the potentially life-altering experience of being part of a healthy family system.
The word ‘genuine’ above is not used lightly. Evil people are masters at displaying faked or feigned emotions
and expression, and will likely instantly recognize the same from others. While it may be difficult to show
genuine brotherly or storge love to someone you consider evil, if you try, you can likely summon a form of
Agape love - that love for others simply because they are a human being like yourself, whether they are being
good or evil.
Creating opportunities for new experiences for others can be difficult, as we usually don’t have the pervasive
ability to control the life situations of another person. But just because it may be a challenge does not remove
71
our responsibility to try whenever possible. Every effort to create opportunities for them to be consciously and
earnestly good - and to experience the goodness of others firsthand - can lead to diminishing the problem of
praxeological evil.
Tread carefully however, for in following this strategy, potential dangers still exist. In allowing the evil person to
experience a relationship with healthy individuals, philanthropists (perhaps like yourself) may inadvertently
allow harm or destructive behaviors to continue, for fear of confrontation and in effort to preserve the peace at
all costs.
This warning can be summed up in the old police adage: “The good in the cop never rubs off on the bad of the
streets, but instead, the bad of the streets rubs off the good of the cops!”
Intentionally entering into a relationship with praxeological evil is a precarious game of balance. Although some
police officers are corrupted, most will withstand the pressures of the streets by consciously guarding their
spirit and focusing on the objectives of their job. A relationship with an evil individual has obvious risks, but
when one remains cautious and aware, an opportunity for allowing them to experience the antithesis of their
condition can exist.
Patience
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead.
The chain of destiny can only be grasped
one link at a time."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
People hate to loose, especially to evil of any kind. Competitive spirit is the nature of most healthy people, and
we all hate to see evil prevail. But patience is perhaps another key to overcoming evil, even though many will
often perceive the waiting as a loss.
A distressed father dealing with the vindictive praxeological evil of his ex-wife once pleaded for answers. He
wanted to know if he should file contempt charges, sue for custody or just continue to rage alone at the
destruction and confusion his former spouse was causing in the life of his precious second grader. He was
given the same suggestion offered to many others in similar situations: be patient, and allow good to prevail.
It is considered a spiritual axiom that good will prevail over evil, in the end. And while most people hold on to
this belief - at least to some degree - our ensuing frustration is that it doesn’t ever seem to prevail fast enough.
Although his child’s mother manifested many of the symptoms of praxeological evil, and clearly the child
herself was experiencing some difficulties due to the general tension her mother’s actions produced, the child’s
physical well being was not in apparent imminent jeopardy. Sadly, little could be done from a legal or moral
perspective to hold the mother accountable.
Although her evil actions caused confusion and chaos in both individual families, Dad was a pillar of strength
and consistency across all spectrums of his life. When this truth was pointed out, he clutched the divorce
decree and angrily shouted, “How the hell can I demonstrate consistency to my child when I am only allowed
three 24-hour periods of visitation with her each month? That’s less than five weeks a year! We’re always just
beginning to put aside the stress of finally being together, when it’s again time for me to abandon my child at
her mother’s house!”
It was agreed that this client’s situation was painful and difficult. He did have poor legal representation at the
time his visitation schedule was set, and yes, the judge who refused to allow a traditional custody agreement
was ignorant of the importance of preserving the child's relationship with both parents. It was also agreed that
his former spouse was a chaotic and mean person. But, it was also pointed out that for a child, and especially
for a young child, ‘home’ and stability is always where either parent is, not where they physically live. The time
he spent, no matter how limited, would not go unrecognized by the child, as long as he was always sincere,
loving, and present when permitted to be in the child’s life. Children have a remarkable ability to make order
72
out of parental chaos, and in the long run, they will be able to discern those who were evil from those who were
inherently good.
(The psychological literature and studies during the last 20 years clearly make the case for co-parenting, as
represented through the legal jargon of ‘Joint Managing Conservatorship’ or ‘Joint Custody’ in divorce. The old
myths of children bonding to only one parent or of needing the security of a ‘primary’ caregiver at the expense
of excluding a relationship with the other parent in the child’s life have been exposed as fraud, and have
actually been found to be even more destructive than the situations these myths purported to avoid. However,
in the above case and many others, injustice is still done, and many courts continue to ignore the realities of
current psychological and family research.)
The advisor tried to comfort the father with empathetic agreement concerning the unfairness of his plight and
the very real need for expanded visitation to preserve his role as the child’s father and also to protect his child
from the mother’s evil. But the advice given was to "back away" from further arguments and legal attempts (as
these confrontations would only lead to further chaos and frustrations), and instead move forward in the
relationship with the daughter by continuing to operate within the limited constraints for the best preservation of
the child's well-being.
Why such advice, despite evidence that this would be contrary to current psychological research and
knowledge of parental bonding? Why shouldn’t this father go all out and pursue 'full custody'? Because, and
only because, in this rare instance we were not dealing with common ineffective parenting skills or with the
typical wounds following divorce. Here, we are dealing with praxeological evil.
To confront and rock the boat through litigation and even justifiable accusations or making strong attempts to
reveal or produce accountability and responsibility - would undoubtedly push the praxeologically evil mother
over the edge. Her automatic responses would manifest through frantic efforts to preserve her status as the
perfect mother, while further upholding her simultaneous victim role, and no one can (or would want to) predict
what desperate actions she might take.
More than one parent has kidnapped their child and fled when custody court proceedings were not going their
way. Outcomes such as this could certainly be worse for the children than if the father continued on in his
current situation, letting the mother believe that she had ‘won’.
In psychotherapy, we call this phenomenon 'disintegration'. For most cases involving ineffectual behaviors, one
would recommend seeking reparation of clear wrongs. In this case involving praxeological evil however, the
admonitions stand firmly against creating a situation where one can almost guarantee the escalation of conflict
as the mother tries to preserve her dual "perfect-victim" role, which could ultimately result in horrific misfortune.
Although no direct threats had been made, the mother in this case seemed through all appearances and
behaviors to be ardently determined to maintain her role as the 'good mother' and the ‘victimized ex-wife’. It
was deemed conceivable that she simply had no ability to uphold or comply with a court order for the father’s
custody or even expanded visitation. In this case, it was feared that a tragedy such as kidnapping could
possibly ensue if she lost in court. Even worse, it was believed that this evil parent had at least the capacity to
physically harm her child, if only to deny the father any relationship with his daughter. This surely would have
been far worse for the child than to continue enduring the hardship of confusion bred by the mother’s evil.
The advice given to this father was summed up with the following statement: “Yes, she may get the child for
the next 10 years. But in the end, good does prevail over evil. If you always meet all of your responsibilities,
and if you are always available to your child when permitted parenting time, she may still have your daughter
for the next 10 years, but you will have her now - even though it may not seem like it -and you will also have
her for the next 40 years."
73
Love
"The way to love anything
is to realize that it might be lost."
--G. K. Chesterton
As previously discussed, love is a characteristic lacking in the praxeologically evil person, and so feigned
expressions of emotion rather than natural love are typical with this population. But can they learn to love and
be loved?
We believe that through education and experience, real and true love can be demonstrated to, and
subsequently learned by, the evil person. Remember the old saying, “Kill ‘em with kindness”? This may
actually be an effective intervention.
In professional counselor training programs, much emphasis is placed on the importance of genuine empathy.
Methods are taught for developing the skills of accurate empathy, to effectively build trust and help patients
make change. Books are read, and students ‘role play’ empathetic counseling sessions. Yet surprisingly, it’s
almost impossible to find a practicing counselor who can honestly say that they personally pass these graduate
school skills on to their clients.
The praxeologically evil person in your life is without the ability to give or receive real love. They therefore lack
a sense of belonging, security, or significance, both within their interpersonal relationships and their community
as a whole. Creating interventions and occasions that allow for experiencing and learning true love and
genuine empathy are essential.
Incarceration
"Have you got a problem?
Do what you can where you are with
what you've got."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
In our previous example, the advice to wait for good to prevail was painful for the father, but essential
for the children. However, in some cases it is clear that waiting for good to prevail will cause more harm than
one is willing to risk.
The mother who smothered her five children - and pleaded for mercy based on the pain she had already
endured - was convicted of murder by a jury in Oswego, New York and escorted to a life in prison. The jury
apparently felt that while Waneta Hoyt might in fact be able to experience psychological and/or religious
redemption, the proper place for her to do so was in the penitentiary.
Most praxeologically evil individuals will continue to be predators and perpetrators. They will continue, despite
their conscious knowledge of the destruction of their actions, to threaten the emotional, physical and
community health of all they meet. These individuals should be locked away when laws are violated.
Much of the problem surrounding the discovery of effective solutions to Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy can
be attributed to the mental health industry’s ‘powers-that-be’ attempting to treat praxeological evil as a
psychiatric condition. If this keeps up, little hope exists for achieving ownership and redemption as we have
outlined, without the further devastation of innocent children’s lives during our efforts at encouraging policy
change. In these cases of criminal child abuse, not only is it essential to forgo patience and ‘frothy emotional
appeals’ and remove the abuser from the child’s environment, but it’s also necessary to protect society as a
whole through legal ramifications. (It is equally important to make sure the abuse is real and poses imminent
danger before removing a child. The trend to remove children under the suspicion or potential for abuse with
74
no evidence is perhaps even more dangerous than evil.)
Incarceration as a solution for praxeological evil works on three levels. First, it frees the limited resources of
community social service agencies to better serve the mentally ill and ineffectual. These two groups actually
have fairly high success rates for making lasting changes, when presented the right tools in the right manner.
Society however simply cannot afford to continue providing resources and funding for praxeologically evil
people. We must protect and allocate our services for those who are able and want to benefit from the
opportunities provided.
At the second level, incarceration is useful to promote change through the experience of pain. Although
recidivism statistics are ridiculously high and penal institutions are not specifically designated as places for
reform, they can and do produce personal pain.
Father Leo Booth, an addictions counselor, Episcopal Priest and frequent speaker on his own life experiences,
often explains that pain is the underlying force that first motivated him to change. The pain of his alcoholism
and the chronic misery he experienced finally became unbearable following a personal tragedy that almost
cost him his life, career, and the people he loved most. It was at that moment in pain, he has said, that his
recognition for change occurred.
The book, Alcoholics Anonymous, instructs those who really want to help an addict make change to allow them
the opportunity to drink again, and thus experience more pain, if they are still unsure of their need for sobriety
at the time of attending their first few AA meetings.
Prison is an ideal place for pain to occur. Although we do not believe the purpose of prison should be to inflict
pain - as that would be retribution and not restitution - the fact remains that many see their deplorable spiritual
and psychological condition only when exposed to intense pain and tragedy, such as having their entire life
confined within for small walls.
For the praxeologically evil person, actually going to prison is final recognition that their charade or pretense of
goodness has been discovered and unmasked. The sudden realization that society has formally labeled them
as the antithesis of their desired perceptions - and has even held them accountable for their conscious
atrocities - certainly causes them great pain.
Thirdly, incarceration is an answer that periodically produces miraculous spiritual conversions. Although the
primary focus of this book has been on psychological definitions and solutions rather than religious, it is clear
that religious redemption is the ultimate or eternal solution to psychological or any other evil. Although many
inmates claim to have been converted by “Jail-House Religion”, and while only a small portion of this ‘saved’
population will actually uphold or adhere to their ‘spiritual experiences’ or the beliefs they profess to
successfully manipulate prison staff and parole boards, some people really do change their lifestyles following
religious prison experiences. This is a solution to praxeological evil that only God can provide.
Charles Colson, the famed Watergate figure sentenced for his role in societal evil, is a shining example of the
religious redemption that can occur only in a prison. Mr. Colson once lived a life ensconced with corrupt
politics. Through his experiences in prison, he converted to a life devoted to positively impacting others and
being a force of good for the many families devastated by all evils in our society, through his Prison Fellowship
Ministry.
In a nutshell, incarceration is a solution to praxeological evil that provides a forum for the person (who has
violated the law) to potentially achieve psychological redemption through ownership of behavior, responsibility,
and restitution, as well as the opportunity to experience spiritual or religious redemption. More importantly,
incarceration keeps society and victims of this evil safe.
When we look to incarceration as an answer for removing the abilities of the praxeologically evil to inflict harm,
we must always be seeking their redemption - and not their retribution - as the underlying goal, otherwise we
will become a society that actually perpetrates the evil.
75
At a recent workshop on the subject of praxeological evil in the helping professions, one counselor insisted that
the death penalty be used as an effective solution for removing the capacity of the evil person to perpetuate
future crimes. She utilized points on the value of formal restriction and the need for accountability to justify her
premise.
On the contrary, we believe that the death penalty is a perfect example of fearing praxeological evil. While we
don’t wish to turn this into a political forum, it would seem that justifying extinction in the name of protection and thus snuffing out the opportunity for redemption - is not humanistic.
The ideological supposition that the fear of the death penalty can act as a deterrent and/or a conversion kit for
other praxeologically evil persons in our world is almost laughable. The death penalty, at least for these
people, is no more fear provoking than incarceration. Most praxeologically evil people don’t get caught or even
commit actual punishable crimes. They may often walk a thin gray line, but most frequently their entropy
producing behaviors are too subtle to even be detected without conscious investigation, and ‘terminal jerkness’
is unfortunately not prosecutable.
Furthermore, the saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right” can’t escape our thoughts when the death penalty is
considered as a solution for evil. It robs the evil person of the potential for redemption, no mater how small that
potential is.
76
Epilogue
Evil stands alone.
Evil is subtle.
Evil is pervasive.
Evil directly and indirectly wounds others.
Evil does not wear red tights and carry a pitchfork.
Evil surround us.
Might you be evil?
Too often in family counseling has the destructive impact of evil been apparent.
Too often are the headlines filled with horrendous crimes which, upon inspection, we find were
committed by evil persons.
Too often innocent victims are lead astray, misused or abused for the greater good of the
praxeologically evil person.
As we undertook the task of writing this book and laying out the criteria for an identification of
praxeological evil, our primary hope was to better derive understanding of human evil from a unique
perspective.
As a profession, chemical dependency counseling has always attempted to break down the core areas
of counseling into manageable pieces. Students of the discipline are then required to receive extensive
training in each of the twelve areas, including client assessment, group counseling dynamics, individual
psychotherapy, and so on. Although all of these divisions have a valid place in training programs to
ensure experience and helping capacities in a spectrum of situations, the proven reality is that the most
effective therapeutic intervention of all - for any condition - is thorough, accurate assessment.
The emphasis of our book has been on identifying and distinguishing the praxeologically evil person
from the mentally ill and the ineffectual. Without such thorough comparisons, misidentification is
inevitable.
Our hope is that through such accurate assessment, interventions can be developed that will reduce
the misery and pain of the mentally ill and ineffectual people who may be unjustly casually labeled as
praxeologically evil, and to also provide psychological and even spiritual redemption for the
praxeologically evil person, through whatever means is discovered from those whose works will follow
ours. We hope this adventure into new perspectives has been a bridge to the future, and encourage
your feedback or efforts in addressing solutions to the problem of praxeological evil.
Most readers will see the reflection of others mirrored in our work. We, however, also found ourselves
asking, “Are we praxeologically evil?” as we outlined the criteria, compiled the cases and typed the
pages of this book. Surely both authors have behaved in ways that transgress moral values at one time
or another (Richard even once received an “aggravated” speeding ticket for violating the rules of the
road in a construction zone!) We also have personality flaws that accompany our strengths. We too
have been motivated by the natural urges of self-centeredness and driven to engage in behavior based
on our emotions. Without a doubt, there have been times when we wondered if we were praxeologically
77
evil, or have feared our own actions.
But again, few and far between isolated incidents do not a praxeologically evil person make!
Self-examination is critical to the development of a healthy lifestyle. We learn and acquire good
judgment from the experiences we have endured. At first, most readers will evaluate our criteria against
their bosses, spouses and neighbors. But most will then move on to evaluate themselves and will also
ask the question, “Am I praxeologically evil?”
This self-criticism is normal, and essential.
Yet, after you take the log from your own eye and go through the assessment process, you will
probably be as relieved as we were to find that you are not evil but merely human, and possess that
divine spark of goodness inside.
It is only the praxeologically evil person who is, as Alcoholics Anonymous characterizes,
"constitutionally incapable of being rigorously honest with themselves."
And, it is only the truly evil person who will fail to admit seeing themselves somewhere in the
pages of this book.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
IN THIS COURSE
To receive continuing education credit for this course, you must have
read this entire text file.
You must also complete and return the
Evaluation of Learning Quiz and pay the CEU
fee.
We always appreciate constructive input from
our customers – even when it’s ‘negative’, so
please feel free to fill in the “Additional
Comments” section of the Grade This Course
evaluation when you submit your quiz and
payment.
Richard K. Nongard, LMFT, CCH, CPFT
Executive Director
78
“Diagnosis: Evil - In Clinical Settings”
6 Continuing Education Clock Hours
Procedures to Receive CEU Credit:
This document contains all of the course materials you needed to read.
Now you must complete the required True/False Evaluation of Learning Quiz
and submit it to our office along with your payment, in order to obtain your
CEU certificate.
FOR ONLINE SUBMISSION:
Go back to www.FastCEUs.com and click the "QUIZ & PAY" button for this
course.
On the page that opens, enter your information and take the T/F Quiz. When you
click SUBMIT, the program will instantly grade your quiz, and provided you
pass by at least 80%, it will then charge your credit or debit card.
Immediately, a new web page will open containing your Receipt and Certificate
info, and a Link will be provided to access a fancy Certificate for you to Print
and/or Save to your computer.
You will also receive an Email containing this same information and the link.
You will NOT receive a paper certificate in the mail - This electronic
system provides numerous options for you to print and save your CEUs.
FOR FAX OR MAIL SUBMISSION:
Print the Quiz and Payment forms on the next few pages of this document, and
complete the requested information.
Our 24-hour secure Fax number is (888)-877-6020.
If you fax your quiz and payment to us, please do NOT also mail it.
We process faxes within approximately 4 business hours after receiving them.
Faxes submitted late in the day or after hours will be processed the next
business morning. However, all certificates are dated the date we receive your
course quiz and payment.
You will NOT receive a paper copy of your Certificate in the mail.
Enter either your fax number or an Email address and we will send your CEU
Certificate to the contact info you provide.
If you prefer to use a check or money order, please Mail the quiz and payment to:
PeachTree Professional Education, Inc.
15560 N. Frank L. Wright Blvd, #B4-118
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
79
EVALUATION OF LEARNING QUIZ - PAGE 1 of 3
PRINT & FAX or MAIL THIS PAGE AND THE ANSWERS PAGES TO OUR OFFICE
* * * * OR * * * *
You may complete and submit this information ONLINE by following this link:
https://www.fastceus.org/index.php?extension=dx-evil
PLEASE NEATLY PRINT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
NAME as you want it on your CEU Certificate: ____________________________________
Your professional cert/license with numbers: _____________________________________
ADDRESS for record keeping: Street: _____________________________________
City: _____________________________________
State: ______________
Zip: ________________
DAYTIME TELEPHONE Number: (________)_________________________________
We will FAX or EMAIL your CEU Certificate (NO copy will be mailed).
— CLEARLY PRINT YOUR FAX # or EMAIL ADDRESS:
_________________________________________________________________________
(IF you FAX us your Evaluations do NOT mail them. Please WRITE NEATLY so you get your CEUs.)
DIAGNOSIS: EVIL - IN CLINICAL SETTINGS
This 6 Hour CEU Course is $89.00
CIRCLE:
Master Card
Visa
Discover Card
American Express
Check Enclosed
Card Number: ____________________________________________________
Card Expiration Date: _______________
Security Code: ________________
(Security Code is last 3 digits on back of card for MC, Visa, Discover - or 4 digits on front for Amex)
Signature: _______________________________________________________
Mail: PeachTree Professional Education, Inc.
15560 N. Frank L. Wright Blvd, #B4-118
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (800) 390-9536
Fax: (888) 877-6020
80
EVALUATION OF LEARNING QUIZ - PAGE 2 of 3
Course Title:
“DIAGNOSIS EVIL”
6 Hours of Approved Continuing Education Credit
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION OF LEARNING QUESTIONS.
T
F
1.) I have read all of the required reading for this course.
T
F
2.) Praxeology is a word that defines the all-encompassing study of human behavior, reaching
beyond traditional understandings of morality or psychology.
T
F
3.) Praxeological evil includes human motivations and emotions, not just judgments of right or
wrong behavior.
T
F
4.) Praxeological evil is not confined to an isolated event or a specific act. It is a pervasive state
of being, and it’s human.
T
F
5.) Labeling a person as evil is far different than labeling an action as evil, and doing so can
have considerable ramifications and serious consequences.
T
F
6.) Mental illnesses are often mistaken for manifestations of evil.
T
F
7.) Susan Smith is a perfect example of an evil person, according to the text.
T
F
8.) A person cannot be diagnosed with personality disorder unless the personality traits we are
calling abnormal lead to clinically significant distress.
T
F
9.) Unlike the other personality disorders, the narcissistic personality disordered individual has
an internal locus of control.
T
F
10.) The antisocial person is capable of sustaining a few interpersonal relationships, as loyalty
and allegiance are important to them.
T
F
11.) Evil is a condition which does not meet a medical or disease model of illness, primarily
because of the supporting evidence of conscious motivations and free will.
T
F
12.) A lack of love characterizes the praxeological evil individual.
T
F
13.) Eros love is the natural brotherly love experienced between people.
T
F
14.) Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is a condition where a person, usually the mother, feigns
or induces illness in a child.
T
F
15.) The "Back to Sleep" program has resulted in a decrease of almost 30% in the number of
US SIDS cases each year.
T
F
16.) Pharmaceutical intervention can arrest praxeological evil.
T
F
17.) The key to making restitution is in making lasting personal change.
T
F
18.) Carl Jung is said to have confronted an individual with the “shadow parts and
underdevelopment of Consciousness.”
T
F
19.) Lack of success in our education efforts however, does not relieve us from the
responsibility of providing it to the praxeologically evil person in our lives.
T
F
20.) Intentionally entering into a relationship with praxeological evil is a precarious game of
balance.
81
GRADE THIS ONLINE COURSE! – Page 3
It is helpful to us if you return this form via snail mail or fax,
along with your Quiz and Payment. Thank-you!
Participant Assessment of Home Study CEU Course
Diagnosis: Evil - In Clinical Settings
6 Credit Hours
Please Rate the Following Statements from 1-5
(1 being the Lowest, 5 being the Highest.)
______ 1. I found the PeachTree Online Home Study Course Instructions simple to
follow.
______ 2. I found the PeachTree Online Home Study Course materials to be of
professional quality, and easy to read.
______ 3. I found the PeachTree Online Home Study Course materials to be of
educational value, relative, and useful to my counseling practice.
______ 4. I completed the 6 Hour PeachTree Online Home Study Course in
approximately 6 hours.
______ 5. I would take another PeachTree Online Home Study Course, and/or
recommend them to a co-worker.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: