The word “radical” evokes a number of connotations and related feelings—generally rooted in one’s beliefs and values. Those of a more conservative bent see radicalism as dangerous, extreme, irrational, and lacking validity. Those committed to the need for radical therapy would reject these characterizations, while recognizing that for those wanting to maintain the status quo being radical is a threat. This is because the target of radical therapy is undoing a status quo based on a toxic ideology. Thus, what it means to be radical requires understanding what that ideology is and how it exerts a broad range of adverse consequences on well-being. Moreover, this critique of the status quo must inescapably be a moral one rooted in values that are essential to promote the optimal development of human beings. In this chapter I will be focusing on these values, compassion and justice. I will use them to describe two corresponding roles of what it means to be radical. In her examination of good and evil, Nieman observes that it is impossible to separate ethical questions from metaphysical ones. Thus, the realization of these values must be concretely rooted in the ways that radical therapists know and act toward themselves and others.