But it naturally raises the question of how, in Rogerian theory, one could explain the personality of people who seem oriented toward evil rather than positively-oriented growth. In other words, what about Hitler? Mass murderers? Etc. How could one posit a self-actualization theory in the face of such cases?

Kindly find the underneath as plausible answer and explanation to the question.

Explanation:

To begin with, it is important to properly understand the concept of self actualization. Self actualization is simply referred to a state whereby an individual reaches his/her full potentials. Suffix to say, these potentials cut across his/her fundamental needs.

For Rogers, to self actualize simply means to advance in ones endeavour, to be more responsible and rise up to accountability. Rogers in his study emphasize the need for an individual to live a good life. The challenge here however is what do we define as a good life.

To some individuals, a good life is probably setting a breakthrough in technology and what have you. However, to others, life offers a different narrative, and their definition of what life is good differs. Conquest of territories as set out by Hitler in his voyage could be argued to be a trip in pursuant of what he feels a good life his. Man has a greater purpose and scope.

In sum, under the context of positive oriented and/or evil, individuals have varying understanding to what is good or evil. This obviously form the basis upon which their self actualization rest on. Hence, for Rogers, there's no one cap fits all, as each scenario will be understand in line with what is generally to be viewed as good or evil by a race or culture.