What do you think of this psychiatrists opinion on what an ' Evil' person is ?

Question

A late Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in one of his books, describes an evil person as :
According to Peck an evil person:[6][7]
Is consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection
Deceives others as a consequence of their own self deception
Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective" (Peck, 1983/1988, p 105[7]))
Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self deception as much as deception of others
Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion" (Peck, 1978/1992, p298[6]))
Maintains a high level of respectability, and lies incessantly in order to do so
Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)
Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

Unusual view for a psychiatrist no ?

Answer 1

So you don't agree with M Scott Peck. As it happens, on this particular matter, neither do I, but he's an awful lot more interesting on the subject of love.



I don't know what point you're trying to make. Peck was something of a maverick among psychiatrists even at the time. So if you don't agree with him, you don't agree with him. End of story. And few people see psychiatry as a strictly scientific profession.



It's his use of the term 'evil' I quarrel with. I think it's not merely unhelpful but downright misleading and, as you say, makes him sound like someone religious (though I'd scarcely say that trying to describe a personality type makes someone narrow-minded or a fundamentalist - it's ONLY the use of the word 'evil' that flags this up to you, I think). What he is actually describing is someone who could be referred to as having a psychopathic personality disorder. And while the term 'evil' seems absurd to me in this context, such people are certainly dangerous.



EDIT: I'm a bit puzzled - what is nonsensical about "consistently self deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self image of perfection"? Haven't you ever encountered people who seem quite certain that their attitudes and actions are 'right', 'perfect' etc even though it's obvious to everyone else that they've behaved abominably?

Answer 2

I cannot even recognize Scott Peck's the definition of "evil" from those snippets and your commentary about them.



From my understanding of his writing, he saw evil as sacrificing another person (speaking ill of them, letting them take blame, hurting or intimidating them, etc.) in order to maintain some lie.



In other words, misusing someone else's life and good name with false claims in order to promote oneself.



Sounds like evil to me.



What's narrow-minded about that? It sounds like someone who has some original and inspired insight bringing ethics into counseling for the trauma of those being hurt by lies. He also wrote on how to deal with such injustice.



The jargon is actually parallel to much cognitive behavioral terminology, including lying to oneself.



Scott Peck, his memory a blessing, was not a fundamentalist of any sort. He was a creative and inspired thinker.



FYI:



"I am condemning no one you foolish person" The word "foolish" is negative judgement, e.g. 'condemnation".

Answer 3

Whoa, basic killer. Sounds to me like somebody desires a splash settee time of their own. because of fact of a few undesirable human beings, all psychiatrists = evil, is that it? What with regards to the corrupt cops? undesirable judges, abusive mothers and dads, pedophilic center-elderly white adult men, line chefs who pee interior the soup - do you condemn all people in those roles as properly because of fact mankind is imperfect?

Answer 4

You're reaction is a bit puzzling. Lots of intense judgement of him, for having his opinion. Something in this, is marrying to something in your own world, to produce your reaction. (Rather than the reaction of "I don't agree, it's nonsense" and simply moving on & ignoring him as not helpful in your life.) You've taken time to post here & look for agreement, so something he said is something you need to "push away." Which is different than a neutral disagreeing & ignoring.



I don't see anything religious. Evil is a secular word for bad stuff that's been purposely done. It didn't dawn on me to bring in evil from religion. Now that it's been pointed out, I see where someone might think of that -- but if it was intended as part of the definition (of the word evil) in those quotes, he'd have been more explicit & elaborate. His entire style is explicit and elaborating on points he's making. So the topic is, people doing mean things intentionally. Isn't his writing from a time period where terms were more commonly used that way (not long ago.)?



I would disagree with his entire underlying statement here. More in a moment.



Some of these are merely quotes of what people sometimes do or are, that accurate. For instance "Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)" is an observation that I'd say is accurate about some people. Same with almost everything on the list.



I disagree that self-deception or intent to remain perfect, is the underlying motivation of a person committing evil. I agree there are people who do self-deception, & everything else on the list. I disagree that, those are the central core to their motivation, & not merely derivative actions (or derivation constructs) to their behaviors.



In my observation: Those people who do evil, create hate. Lots of people create anger in others, but that's not hate. So I'll define evil as those who harm others 1. purposely 2. in intense ways 3. ongoingly. (I.e. act with evil intent.) Those doing evil, have a lack of ability to fill themselves up through a loving connection. They don't know how to experience that. So instead they try to rob others, purposely trying to steal the very core ability to love, out of them. Those doing evil are trying to gain love, by stealing other people's love out of them (disconnect them from it). In other to gain it for themselves - but you can't gain love that way. So to do this they perpetrate hateful evil acts at their target, to try to slowly lose that target's orientation of how to love. So I would disagree that it's motivated by self-deception to preserve a perfect image.



Evil by humans at other humans, is purposeful repeated acts of harm to steal their targets ability to love. To make them as loveless as the source person. To fill up the source person. It fails. Another aspect is that it is at the same time, a replacement of love with power plays. So the motivations are somewhat hidden from the perpetrator. They don't understand there is any other way to be. The acts & harm, are the goal of the perpetrator. They know. It's not hidden, self-deception. It's not to avoid guilt. They by his own definition are narcissistic and don't understand how to feel guilt. It's not to maintain a perfect image. That can't be an endpoint motivation (an underlying goal). Why would one want an perfect image? He must answer that, so I'm not sure you've pulled out the best sequence of quotes to explain his theories.



However, I don't agree with his views - as presented by your quotes. And I do wonder what in here is bothering you, that you wanted agreement for? That seems like the more interesting question. Something that people here might be able to help, or give insight into & support you on, if better understood.



The author writes thoughts, philosophical thoughts. Long before concrete studies can happen, someone has to have an initial thought. So there's nothing to condemn here at him for writing his ideas -- unless someone is shoving them at you & making you uncomfortable with them. In which case, that person's doing of that, is to be heavily condemned.

Answer 5

Most psychiatrists think with a vocabulary that is more nuanced than using terms such as "evil".