I think it's a mistake to see psychopathology as ever "functional."
"Success" can't be furthered by unrealistic thinking. Even if we interpret "success" as making money, psychopathological thinking will be less successful than rational thinking. In Keynes's analysis of financial markets, for instance, the "wisest" investors are understood to be those sufficiently free themselves from psychopathology to be able to understand and predict the psychopathological thought and behaviour of others. However, to treat money-making or "goods" in the utility function sense as the end of life is itself a mistake, a mistake expressing the same psychopathology as the unrealistic means adopted in their pursuit.
This last point explains why the idea of willing as psychopathological is inconsistent with the idea of it as "evil." Individuals doing bad things are mistaken about what they ought to be doing, not evil.
I've several times elaborated what I take to be Marx's conception of the "good" and of the means appropriate to its pursuit. According to him and to the tradition in thought to which he belongs, the "good" is the activity of creating and appropriating beauty and truth within relations of mutual recognition (an idea elaborated, for instance, in the account of true human production at the end of the Comments on James Mill <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/ index.htm>). It's radically inconsistent with a "utility function" game theory approach. It isn't just the way greed enters into the conventional conception of the latter that creates the inconsistency.
Ted
