 Some philosophers, and more than a few novelists and screenwriters, find the view that agents are always choosing under “the guise of the good” as inadequate to the psychology of extreme malevolence. It may have suited the melioristic conceptions of the Enlightenment, but the well-publicized, mechanized horrors of the recent past allegedly demand a bleaker picture of perpetrator psychology. Serial killers, murderous dictators, torturers, derivatives traders: the idea is that at least some of these malign actors see their own actions as atrocious—as making the world worse rather than better on the whole (and sometimes worse for themselves)—and yet still choose to perform them. They are thus not saying “Evil be thou my good”, at least on the interpretation just offered. Rather, they are self-consciously male-volent: they will the bad under the aspect of the bad. And yet they are not insane—this is what makes their actions especially difficult for the rest of us to understand. This is a second common way in which the term “radical evil” is used. (See Pauer-Studer and Velleman 2015 for a reading of Milton according to which Satan’s war cry is interpreted in this way.)