top of page
Search

Confronting the Real: Moral Injury in Lacan’s Ethics of Psychoanalysis

Introduction

Research Question: How can Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic ethics, especially his concept of the Real, illuminate the phenomenon of moral injury? This question is significant because moral injury – the psychological trauma from acting against one’s moral convictions – has gained attention in clinical psychology and ethics as a distinct form of suffering not fully addressed by traditional trauma frameworks ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ).


Lacan’s Seminar VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis offers a unique lens to analyze moral injury, shifting the focus from normative rules to the subject’s relationship with desire, guilt, and the limits of meaning. By examining moral injury through Lacan’s tripartite schema (Imaginary, Symbolic, Real) and his redefinition of ethical culpability, we can better understand why violations of one’s ethical values produce such profound and enduring psychic pain. Integrating Lacanian theory with contemporary debates in psychoanalysis and moral philosophy will show how this perspective enriches both clinical practice and ethical reflection.


The following discussion is structured as a scholarly inquiry, beginning with Lacan’s theoretical foundations, then analyzing moral injury as an encounter with the Real, and finally exploring the broader ethical and clinical implications alongside comparative perspectives from Freud, Emmanuel Levinas, and Bertrand Russell.


Jacques Lacan
Jacques Lacan

Theoretical Foundations: Lacan’s Schema and the Superego

Lacan’s Tripartite Schema (Imaginary, Symbolic, Real): Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory divides human experience into three interdependent orders – the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. The Imaginary denotes the realm of images and identifications, exemplified by the mirror stage in which the infant first recognizes its image as a whole self. It involves the ego’s formation through illusions of coherence and autonomy.


In contrast, the Symbolic is the order of language, law, and social structure – a “meta-language” network that transcends the individual (Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). The Symbolic order comprises the codes of culture (the “big Other”) that assign meaning and mediate desire. Finally, the Real in Lacan’s framework is that which lies outside or beyond symbolization – it is often described as the impossible, the inassimilable kernel of existence that resists being caught in images or words (Jacques Lacan and Slavoi Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). As one commentator puts it, “outside the Imaginary and Symbolic lies the Real, which Lacan equates with the impossible and inexpressible… concluding that the Real is the Impossible” (Jacques Lacan and Slavoi Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). In other words, the Real is what remains when the webs of meaning (Symbolic) and the mirrors of self-image (Imaginary) collapse; it is experienced as a raw trauma or absence of sense. Lacan even likens the Real to an unbridgeable gap or void around which our reality is structured (Jacques Lacan and Slavoi Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). Importantly, the Real is not equivalent to “external reality,” but rather the limit of our experience – for example, extreme pain or a shocking event can be Real in that it shatters our usual frameworks of understanding. This tripartite schema will be crucial for analyzing moral injury: a moral transgression can destabilize the Imaginary and Symbolic coordinates of a person’s life, forcing a confrontation with the Real of an unbearable truth.

The Function of the Superego: In Freudian theory, the superego is the internalized moral authority – essentially a psychic agency that enforces societal norms and parental values within the individual. Freud described the superego as a harsh judge, whose tension with the ego produces a sense of guilt and an unconscious “need for punishment” (Civilization and Its Discontents Quotes | Explanations with Page Numbers | LitCharts). In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud famously noted that the superego can become crueler than external law, tormenting the subject with relentless guilt even for thoughts or wishes, not only for actions (Civilization and Its Discontents Quotes | Explanations with Page Numbers | LitCharts). Lacan takes this concept in a startling direction: rather than a simple prohibitor, the Lacanian superego is an obscene imperative that paradoxically commands the subject to enjoy (in French, jouir) (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). As Lacan puts it, the superego “bellows: ‘Enjoy!’” (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). This means that beyond the explicit moral rules of the Symbolic order, there is an implicit pressure on the subject to attain jouissance – a excessive, transgressive enjoyment. The result of this superegoic command is often the opposite of enjoyment: the more one tries to obey the injunction to “enjoy as much as possible,” the more guilt it generates (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). Lacan explains that guilt does not arise because we have secret immoral desires, but because we renounce our true desire in favor of obeying this impossible command. Indeed, Lacan’s radical ethical claim is that “from an analytic point of view, the only thing of which one can be guilty is of having given ground relative to one’s desire.” (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). In other words, genuine moral guilt, for Lacan, stems from betraying one’s own desire (one’s authentic subjective stance) – not from violating an external moral law. This counter-intuitive idea turns the classical understanding of the superego on its head: the superego is no longer the voice of moral conscience per se, but a tyrant that pushes the subject toward excessive behaviors and then punishes the subject with guilt for having yielded. Lacanian ethics thus shifts focus to the gap between desire and duty. While the Freudian superego says “You should not… (steal, kill, lust)”, the Lacanian superego whispers, “You must enjoy!” and then condemns us when in pursuing that imposed enjoyment we stray from our true desires (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .) (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .).

To summarize the theoretical background: Lacan’s Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real provide a structural view of subjective reality, and his concept of the superego recasts moral self-judgment as rooted in an internal conflict between imposed enjoyment and authentic desire. With these concepts established, we can now examine moral injury as a phenomenon at the intersection of ethics and trauma – an experience where the subject’s moral framework collapses, potentially bringing them face-to-face with the Real.

Moral Injury and the Real

Defining Moral Injury: Moral injury refers to the profound psychological distress that results from actions (or failures to act) which violate one’s moral or ethical beliefs. Originally noted in the context of war and combat trauma, the term has been expanded to various fields (military, healthcare, law enforcement) to describe a specific kind of inner anguish. One clear definition states: “Moral injury occurs when individuals violate or witness violations of deeply held values and beliefs.” ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ). In contrast to PTSD, which is often caused by life-threatening fear or horror, moral injury is rooted in shame, guilt, and a sense of having transgressed one’s own ethical core ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ) ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ). Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, who introduced the term, described moral injury as a betrayal of “what’s right” by someone in authority in a high-stakes situation, resulting in a psychological wound as real and devastating as a physical injury ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ). Psychologist Brett Litz and colleagues further broadened it to include “the lasting psychological, biological, spiritual, behavioral, and social impact of perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” ( Moral Injury in Health Care: Identification and Repair in the COVID-19 Era - PMC ). In short, moral injury is the trauma of moral conscience: it’s not about what happened to oneself (as in being a victim of violence), but about what one did or allowed to happen that now shatters their identity and worldview.

Moral Injury as a Confrontation with the Real: Lacan’s concept of the Real provides a powerful framework for understanding why moral injury is so psychically disruptive. A morally injurious event – say, a soldier participating in the killing of civilians, or a physician forced to ration care in a way that lets some patients die – is not just a violation of an external norm, but a rupture in the person’s Symbolic and Imaginary framework. The individual’s Symbolic identity (e.g. “I am a good soldier who protects the innocent” or “I am a doctor who saves lives”) is suddenly invalidated by the reality of their own actions. The Imaginary sense of oneself as moral, honorable, or “good” is likewise shattered. In Lacanian terms, such an event “destroys both the Imaginary (the Self) and the Symbolic (the meta-language of values), depriving the subject of ‘home and sky.’” (Jacques Lacan and Slavoi Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). The familiar reference points that gave meaning to their life – their ideals, their trust in authority or in their own virtue – collapse. What remains is a traumatic void, an encounter with something unthinkable in themselves. This unspeakable excess is precisely the mark of the Real. The Real is “impossible” in the sense that it cannot be integrated into the symbolic narrative of one’s life (Jacques Lacan and Slavoi Zizek: The Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real | In the Ravine). For someone suffering moral injury, the horrifying knowledge of “I did this” or “I allowed this to happen” is often experienced as unsayable and irreconcilable. They might literally find it hard to put into words the depth of their guilt or shame, indicating that the experience sits at the edge of the Symbolic realm, in the realm of the Real’s inexpressibility.

Clinical observations of moral injury indeed show symptoms consistent with an encounter with the Real. Individuals report intrusive nightmares and flashbacks not only of what they saw, but of what they did – these can be seen as the return of the repressed Real, recurring in hallucinations and dreams because it cannot yet be symbolized or worked through. They may feel estranged from society and unable to partake in normal social (Symbolic) life, as if exiled by what they know about themselves. Often there is intense self-punishment or even self-destructive behavior: for example, a veteran with moral injury might engage in reckless accidents or unconscious efforts to invite punishment (an echo of Freud’s “need for punishment” (Civilization and Its Discontents Quotes | Explanations with Page Numbers | LitCharts)). In Lacanian terms, this can be interpreted as the subject’s attempt to resolve an internal moral debt – the superego lashing the ego with guilt for its “real ethical” infraction (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .).

Crucially, according to Lacan’s ethical framework, the core of moral injury may be understood as the guilt of having “given ground relative to one’s desire” (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). Consider the soldier who, deep down, desired to act honorably and not harm innocents, yet went against that desire due to orders or fear. Afterward, the soldier’s moral injury is not just because killing is objectively “wrong,” but because he betrayed his own ethical desire – the desire to remain innocent or just. Likewise, a doctor forced by circumstances to abandon a patient may feel guilt because she violated her desire to uphold her oath to heal. The confrontation with the Real occurs at the moment they recognize an irreparable gap between who they thought they were (and wished to be) and what they did. This recognition is often traumatic: it is a moment of truth that the Symbolic coordinates of one’s identity failed. In Seminar VII, Lacan illustrated such ethical moments through the figure of Antigone – whose act of defying the king to bury her brother placed her at an extreme limit, the threshold of the Real. Antigone embodies an unwavering stance (she does not give up on her desire to honor the divine law) and thereby becomes “a being at the limit of the human” in Lacan’s analysis. Those suffering moral injury, by contrast, are tortured by the sense that they did give way on their desire for the Good. They have looked into what Lacan calls “das Ding”, the Thing – the abyss of radical Otherness that in Seminar VII represents the ultimate ethical object or limit (related to the Freudian Thing, the primal object of desire and dread). In a morally injurious event, one’s actions can reveal a glimpse of “inhuman” cruelty or betrayal – a Thing in oneself that one cannot recognize as oneself. This is a Real that overwhelms and defies meaning, leading to symptoms of dissociation, horror, and self-condemnation.

To ground this in a concrete example: a combat veteran recalls how, in the chaos of battle, he followed an order that resulted in the death of a child. Prior to this, his Imaginary self-image was perhaps a protector, and his Symbolic mandate as a soldier was to fight justly. The event annihilates these assumptions. In the aftermath, he experiences recurring nightmares of the child’s face (a Real that insists, beyond any comforting narrative) and he feels he no longer belongs to the world of “decent people.” Standard therapeutic reassurances (e.g. “you had no choice” or “you were following orders”) often fail to alleviate his torment. From a Lacanian perspective, this is because the moral injury is not located at the level of rational calculation; it sits at the level of his being, where an internal ethical ideal was shattered. The superego in such cases may become ferocious – not for breaking the military’s rules (he in fact obeyed those), but for violating his own ethical desire not to commit an atrocity. This illustrates Lacan’s point that the worst guilt is felt not when we transgress a law, but when we submit to a law against our desire (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). By obeying the explicit command and ignoring his inner prohibition (“do not kill the innocent”), the soldier gave way on his desire, and the reward from the superego is not peace but relentless guilt (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). In short, moral injury can be seen as a collision between the Symbolic law (e.g. duty, authority) and the Real of one’s desire for the Good, leaving the subject in an ethical no-man’s-land beyond the reach of easy judgment.

Clinical Considerations: Understanding moral injury as a confrontation with the Real has implications for psychoanalytic treatment. The therapeutic task is not merely to erase the guilt or to rationalize the event, but to help the subject symbolize and integrate this Real encounter. In practice, this might mean creating a space where the person can speak the unspeakable – to put words to the experience of moral violation, and to reformulate what it means for their desire and identity. Lacan suggested that the end of analysis involves the subject assuming their desire (“traversing the fundamental fantasy” in Lacanian parlance). In cases of moral injury, this could involve the person coming to recognize the ethical truth of their experience: for instance, acknowledging the depth of their wish that things had been otherwise, and finding a way to live with that knowledge without endless self-punishment. This might also involve separating the authentic guilt (the recognition of having betrayed one’s values) from the inauthentic guilt fueled by the superego’s cruel enjoyment. The clinician must tread carefully: rather than encouraging denial or facile forgiveness, a Lacanian-informed approach would validate the meaning of the patient’s guilt (as pointing to something real in their moral being) while guiding them to reposition themselves in relation to it. The goal is not to impose an external absolution, but to help the patient reconstruct a narrative (Symbolic order) that can accommodate the traumatic Real. For example, a veteran might work toward recognizing, “The fact that I feel this much guilt testifies to the kind of person I am – one who truly values innocent life. I cannot undo the act, but I can acknowledge my responsibility and find ways to honor that value going forward.” Such an outcome, albeit hard-won, transforms mute suffering into an ethical knowledge about oneself, which is more bearable and potentially redemptive. We will discuss further ethical implications of this approach in the next section.

Ethical and Clinical Implications of a Lacanian Approach

Lacan’s Insights for Psychoanalytic Practice: Lacan’s reconfiguration of ethics provides therapists a nuanced way to address moral injury and guilt. In traditional psychotherapy or counseling, therapists might attempt to reassure patients that they are “not monsters,” perhaps by contextualizing the moral violation (e.g., explaining the systemic pressures or orders that led to it). While such rational contextualization is important, a Lacanian perspective warns that the unconscious roots of guilt must be addressed at the level of desire rather than intellect. If the patient’s superego is unconsciously telling them they deserve to suffer (a frequent scenario in moral injury, where individuals report feeling incapable of happiness or intimacy as a form of self-punishment), simply countering that thought cognitively will have limited effect. Instead, the analyst would listen for what lost object or ideal the patient’s psyche is attached to. Lacan’s ethic – “do not give up on your desire” – can translate clinically into helping the patient identify the violated value or desire that is causing their psychic pain, and explore how they might realign with it in the present. For instance, a healthcare worker wracked with guilt for triaging patients (choosing who would get life-saving treatment during a crisis) might, in analysis, discover that her deepest desire is to affirm the sanctity of each life. The unbearable Real she confronted was the fact that reality forced a choice that negated that principle. Therapy could help her find symbolic acts or commitments through which she can continue to honor that principle (her desire) in a world where it was not fully honored at that traumatic moment. Rather than being crushed by the abstract superegoic command (“you must save everyone or you are evil”), she can come to terms with human limits while still affirming her ethical desire in how she conducts her work or memorializes those lost. In Lacanian terms, this is a shift from guilt to responsibility: taking responsibility for one’s desire going forward, instead of endlessly punishing oneself for having been unable to fulfill it in the past (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .) (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .).

Implications for Moral Philosophy: Lacan’s approach to ethics offers a provocative counterpoint to many traditional ethical theories. Most moral philosophy frameworks – whether deontological (duty-based) or utilitarian (consequence-based) – evaluate actions by external criteria (rules, outcomes). In those terms, someone who commits a wrong would seek justification or atonement according to established principles (e.g., “It was a lesser evil given the circumstances” or “I will make reparations to balance the harm done”). Lacanian ethics shifts the focus to the subject’s internal truth. It suggests that an ethical life is not guaranteed by following universal rules if those rules make the subject betray their singular desire. Conversely, an action that society condemns might still be ethical in Lacan’s sense if it was done in fidelity to a true desire (his famous analyses of Antigone or even the perverse transgressions of the Marquis de Sade exemplify this tension). This raises complex questions: Could an act deemed “wrong” by conventional standards sometimes be an affirmation of subjective ethical truth? Lacan isn’t giving license to immorality; rather, he’s exposing that the source of ethical vitality is the alignment between one’s acts and the core of one’s being (the unconscious desire). For contemporary ethics, this underscores the importance of moral psychology: understanding how people integrate moral values at a personal level. It resonates with the idea that ethical injuries (like moral injury trauma) cannot be fully healed by external punishment or pardon alone – there must be a reconciliation within the subject’s own value system.

Psychoanalytically, this perspective invites a dialogue with approaches like Jungian or humanistic psychology that emphasize wholeness and self-congruence. Lacan’s unique contribution is his rigor about the unconscious structures: desire is not simply what one wants superficially, but an unconscious position that might even be at odds with the subject’s ego-image. Thus, a person might consciously believe they subscribe to a moral code, yet their moral injury reveals a deeper conflict. For example, a police officer might swear an oath “to serve and protect” (conscious moral ideal), but find himself haunted after using lethal force in a situation. The Lacanian question would be: what unconscious desire was at play or was sacrificed in that moment? Perhaps the officer had a long-standing identification as a “hero” (Imaginary ego ideal), and the reality of killing, even if justified by protocol, annihilated that identification – thus injuring his sense of a good self. The ethical implication is that our publicly professed ethics and our unconscious ethics are not always aligned. Lacan pushes us to consider ethics at the level of subjective truth rather than public virtue signaling.

In broader societal terms, addressing moral injury might require institutions (military, medical, etc.) to create conditions where individuals are not so frequently put in positions of value betrayal. Lacan, being a clinician, did not formulate policy proposals, but his emphasis on the impossible enjoyment commanded by the superego can be extrapolated as a critique of cultures that insist on conflicting demands. For instance, a healthcare system that tells doctors “Do everything for the patient” and simultaneously “You have 10 minutes per patient and limited resources” creates a structural double bind. The superegoic injunction to enjoy doing the impossible sets up individuals for inevitable guilt. Ethically, Lacanian theory would call out the hypocrisy of moral codes that ignore subjective limits. It aligns with certain contemporary critiques in ethics that emphasize the importance of acknowledging moral dilemmas and tragic choices rather than naively expecting purity. Thus, one implication is the need for what some theorists term an “ethics of finitude” or an ethics of the Real – recognizing that not all harms can be avoided and that part of ethics is learning to bear the impossible choices without disavowal.

On the clinical front, Lacan’s insights have influenced contemporary psychoanalytic practice by encouraging therapists to engage with patients’ value conflicts more directly. Rather than seeing guilt merely as a symptom to eliminate, there is a trend (in Lacanian and relational psychoanalysis) to view guilt and remorse as potential openings to meaning. In cases of moral injury, the treatment may border on an existential therapeutic process, where questions of guilt, forgiveness, and making amends are explored not just as cognitive reframing but as reorienting the subject’s desire. This intersects with pastoral counseling and philosophical counseling in interesting ways – areas concerned with moral meaning. The Lacanian clinician, however, maintains a careful stance of not becoming the patient’s new moral authority (that would just reinforce the superego). Instead, the clinician acts as a sort of conduit for the patient to encounter their own Otherness – to face the Real of their act in a guided, symbolic space and to find a livable relation to it.

Comparative Perspectives: Freud, Levinas, and Russell

Situating Lacan’s framework in a wider intellectual context helps clarify its unique contributions and limitations. We will briefly compare his approach to those of Sigmund Freud, Emmanuel Levinas, and Bertrand Russell, each of whom offers a different angle on ethics, subjectivity, and moral conflict.

Freud’s Classical Psychoanalytic Ethics: Lacan’s ideas build on but also depart from Freudian theory. In Freudian terms, moral injury might be explained as an overbearing superego causing pathological guilt. Freud conceived guilt as arising from the internal conflict between the ego and a “harsh super-ego” that relentlessly judges it (Civilization and Its Discontents Quotes | Explanations with Page Numbers | LitCharts). In Freud’s view, the soldier who committed a wrongful act would suffer guilt because his superego (an internalized father-figure or cultural ideal) condemns the deed and demands punishment. Freud noted that such guilt can be unconscious and can lead to self-sabotaging behaviors or melancholia (depressive illness) when the ego cannot reconcile with the superego’s standards (Showing all quotes that contain 'Freud on superego'.). The “solution” in Freudian therapy often involves making the unconscious conflict conscious and helping the ego gain more rational control, or softening the superego’s harshness through insight. In Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, he even suggests that civilization itself runs on the production of guilt, as the price for controlling our aggressive instincts (Civilization and Its Discontents Quotes | Explanations with Page Numbers | LitCharts). From a Freudian perspective, a morally injured person suffers because an immoral act (or omission) has activated intense superego aggression against the self.

Lacan agrees that unconscious guilt is at play, but he reframes what the person is “guilty” of. Rather than guilt for breaking an external rule, it is guilt for betraying one’s desire (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). Where Freud might focus on balancing internal drives and moral constraints (a kind of homeostasis between id, ego, superego), Lacan focuses on the truth the act reveals about the subject. Nonetheless, Freud’s concept of the superego’s sadism complements Lacan’s view: both acknowledge that the moral conscience can become cruel and excessive. Lacan’s twist is to ask why the superego is never satisfied. His answer: because the superego’s commands (“Enjoy!”) are impossible to fully obey, the subject is inevitably guilty – a condition that only confronting one’s desire can alleviate (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .) (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .). Thus Lacan and Freud share the understanding that moral suffering is internally generated, but Lacan relocates the source from a repressive morality to a paradoxical failure of authenticity. Clinically, a Freudian might encourage the patient to forgive themselves by realizing the origin of their standards (say, overly strict parents or social indoctrination), whereas a Lacanian would be more likely to ask the patient to examine what personal truth was violated and how the patient might take responsibility for it now. These approaches can converge – for example, both would agree that merely pushing the guilt away or suppressing it is ineffective – but Lacan offers a more philosophically nuanced interpretation of what true ethical reconciliation entails.

Levinas’s Ethics of the Other: Emmanuel Levinas, a 20th-century philosopher, presents an ethical philosophy seemingly worlds apart from Lacan’s, yet there are insightful points of contrast. Levinas centers ethics on the encounter with the Other, particularly the face-to-face relationship with another human being. For Levinas, ethics is first philosophy – the call of the Other’s vulnerability commands an infinite responsibility from the self. He writes that each “I” is totally responsible for the Other whom they encounter face-to-face, obliged to do more for the Other than can ever be reciprocated (Facing the Other: Emmanuel Levinas on the Face-to-Face Encounter). The quintessential ethical injunction for Levinas is “Thou shalt not kill,” emanating from the face of the Other, which signifies the Other’s precariousness and one’s duty to them (Responsibility in the Face of the Other | My Jewish Learning). In Levinas’s view, guilt is not primarily a psychological state but an ontological condition: we are always already guilty because we can never fully discharge our infinite responsibility to others.

How does this relate to moral injury? One could say that someone suffering moral injury (like our earlier example of a soldier who killed or a doctor who failed a patient) is experiencing exactly what Levinas describes: an overwhelming responsibility and guilt toward the Other whom they harmed or failed. Levinas would interpret their pain as the awakening of conscience by the alterity of the victim. The soldier’s infinite responsibility to the innocent other was betrayed, hence the seemingly infinite guilt he now endures. In this sense, Levinas provides a philosophical validation of the gravity of moral injury: it is the price of our ethical relation to others that we cannot simply brush off such betrayals as “part of the job.” Levinas might say the veteran’s soul is rightly disturbed because ethical obligation is the core of humanity.

However, Levinas and Lacan differ sharply in emphasis. Levinas emphasizes the heteronomous nature of ethics – it comes from outside the self (the Other, or even the divine in the Other). Lacan, while not denying the importance of others (he built an entire theory of the Subject that depends on the big Other of language), locates ethics in the subject’s relation to their own desire. From a Levinasian perspective, Lacan’s maxim “do not give up on your desire” could sound worryingly egoistic or self-centered. Levinas would caution that “to welcome the other is to put in question my freedom”, meaning ethics often demands sacrificing or limiting one’s own desires for the sake of the Other (Being and Being Taught: Levinas, Ethics, Education - BYUH Speeches). Indeed, Levinas explicitly criticizes philosophies (like Nietzsche’s or a certain reading of Freud) that reduce ethics to self-expression or power, insisting instead on servitude to the Good beyond one’s own being. The scenario of moral injury illustrates a point of tension: If a person’s desire (in Lacan’s sense) was actually not to commit the unethical act, then Lacan and Levinas oddly agree that the sin was betraying that desire (Lacan) which is equivalent to betraying the call of the Other (Levinas). But imagine a scenario where one’s desire conflicts with the Other’s need – for instance, a soldier might have an aggressive desire for vengeance that conflicts with an innocent civilian’s right to live. Lacanian ethics would say “do not betray your desire” (which could be interpreted as telling the soldier to follow through with his impulse), whereas Levinasian ethics would demand restraining that desire in the Other’s name. This hypothetical shows that Lacan’s ethic, if misunderstood as endorsing any personal desire, could justify cruelty – a critique often raised by commentators. Lacanians respond that true desire is not the same as base impulse or violent urge; it is tied to the subject’s unconscious truth and is inherently filtered through the Symbolic (language, law) – thus an ethical desire would not be simply murderous instinct but something that has passed through the reflection of the unconscious structure. Nonetheless, the contrast stands: Levinas prioritizes the Other’s vulnerability, while Lacan prioritizes the subject’s fidelity to their desire (which may include their desire to honor the Other).

In practical terms, a Levinasian approach to someone with moral injury might emphasize atonement and service: the path to healing is through ethical acts that honor others, perhaps reaching out, apologizing, or doing good works to reaffirm one’s responsibility to humanity. A Lacanian approach, as discussed, focuses on self-reconciliation with one’s desire. These need not be mutually exclusive; they can complement each other. A veteran might need to both forgive himself (Lacanian self-reconciliation) and seek forgiveness from or symbolic reparation toward those he hurt (Levinasian responsibility). The integration of both could provide a fuller healing – addressing both the intrapsychic and the interpersonal dimensions of moral injury.

Bertrand Russell and Rational Ethics: Bertrand Russell, as an analytic philosopher and humanist, represents a very different tradition of moral thought grounded in reason, science, and a broadly utilitarian concern for human happiness. Russell did not formulate a single ethical system, but he argued for a morality based on critical intelligence and compassion, as opposed to dogmatic authority or unbridled impulse. A famous Russell quote captures his balanced view: “The morality which I should advocate does not consist simply of saying to people: ‘Follow your impulses and do as you like.’” (The Bertrand Russell Society | Quotations from Russell’s Writings). In other words, Russell rejected both rigid moralism and anarchic desire-following. He believed in educating and shaping instincts rather than either repressing them entirely or indulging them recklessly (The Bertrand Russell Society | Quotations from Russell’s Writings). Russell’s ethical stance was pragmatic: the good life, he said, is one “inspired by love and guided by knowledge” (a phrase from his work What I Believe). He emphasized kindness, fairness, and the welfare of society as ethical guiding lights, and he often criticized hypocrisy in moral codes, noting that people frequently preach one morality and practice another (Bertrand Russell Quotes About Ethics).

Comparing this to Lacan’s perspective yields interesting insights. Lacan’s ethic might superficially seem like “follow your impulse” (since he says not to give up on desire), which Russell explicitly warns against (The Bertrand Russell Society | Quotations from Russell’s Writings). However, Lacan’s notion of désir is far more complex than ordinary impulse; it is shaped by the unconscious and the Other. If Lacan were to answer Russell, he might say that the injunction “do not give way on your desire” does not mean do whatever you feel like in the moment (which would be mere Imaginary whim). It means to remain true to the singular passion that defines you, even if that passion is inconvenient or goes against social expectation. For example, if someone’s deep desire is to be an artist, but society or family pressures push them to become an accountant, Lacanian ethics would see betraying the art as the true “immorality” for that person. Russell, being a champion of individual freedom in many ways, might actually agree that societal convention shouldn’t crush personal aspirations – but he would also ask that one’s pursuits be tempered by consideration of others.

In the context of moral injury: Russell might frame the problem as a conflict between one’s moral principles and an action one felt forced to take. The task then is to honestly acknowledge the conflict and try to prevent such situations through better social systems or personal planning. Being a rationalist, Russell would likely encourage open discussion, learning from mistakes, and seeking reform (for instance, better rules of engagement in war, or better support for doctors in crises). He would probably view excessive guilt as something to be worked through by understanding that humans are fallible and that often blame lies partly in systemic failures. Lacan, conversely, delves into the irrational, unconscious dimension of that guilt – something a purely rational approach might overlook. For a Russell-type thinker, moral injury is a grave problem but ultimately one of misaligned actions and beliefs that reason and empathy can address. For Lacan, moral injury is a window into the subject’s very being – it reveals the crack in our symbolic armor where the Real erupts.

One could say Russell stands for ethical clarity and minimizing hypocrisy, Levinas for ethical infinity towards the Other, and Lacan for ethical fidelity to one’s desire. These perspectives need not be mutually exclusive, but they highlight different layers of the moral life. A soldier dealing with moral injury might need Russell’s clear-eyed analysis (“You were in an impossible situation; how can we change that for others?”), Levinas’s humility and Other-directed penance (“How can I honor those who suffered as a result?”), and Lacan’s inward truth-seeking (“What did this act do to my sense of self, and how can I live authentically after it?”). Through these comparative lenses, Lacan’s contribution is to ensure that, in addressing moral injury, we do not bypass the subjective, psychological reality of the trauma. He reminds us that morality is not just a set of external rules, but is entwined with identity, unconscious desire, and the very constitution of the subject.


Conclusion

Moral injury, as an eruption of ethical pain, challenges our understanding of both trauma and morality. By employing Lacan’s Seminar VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis as a guide, this paper has argued that moral injury can be fruitfully seen as a confrontation with the Real – a moment when the symbolic fabric of one’s moral universe is torn, and the subject faces an unspeakable excess of guilt and meaninglessness. Lacan’s tripartite schema (Imaginary, Symbolic, Real) helps map the collapse of the self-image and value system that occurs in moral injury, while his redefinition of the superego and guilt offers a nuanced explanation for why this collapse is so tormenting (the subject realizes they betrayed their desire for the Good, and the superego cruelly enjoys punishing that lapse (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .) (Lacanian Ethics and the Superego | Larval Subjects .)). We integrated secondary literature and examples to show that this Lacanian lens aligns with clinical observations – those with moral injury often feel cut off from the language of common comfort and suffer an enduring need for self-punishment that is not assuaged by rational excuses.

The analysis also situated Lacan in contemporary debates by comparing his ideas with Freud’s foundational psychoanalysis, Levinas’s ethical philosophy of the Other, and Russell’s rational humanism. This comparison highlighted that Lacan does not provide a conventional “ethical system” but rather an ethics of psychoanalysis concerned with subjective truth. In doing so, Lacanian ethics complements but also critiques other views: it cautions that ethics is not merely about external actions or relations, but about an inner confrontation with one’s own desire and the limits (lacks) around which one’s psyche is structured.

Key Arguments Summarized: (1) Moral injury is distinct from fear-based trauma and centrally involves an ethical breach that wounds the person’s identity and worldview. (2) Lacan’s concept of the Real captures the way such breaches feel unassimilable and unspeakable – a hole in meaning. (3) The Lacanian superego explains why victims of moral injury experience relentless guilt: the very structure of conscience turns against the subject for having sacrificed their authentic ethical stance. (4) Therapeutically, addressing moral injury may require helping individuals articulate their experience (symbolize the Real) and reconnect with their violated values or desires in a constructive way. (5) Lacan’s perspective, when dialogue with other thinkers, enriches our understanding by adding the dimension of unconscious desire to ethical discussions often dominated by abstract principles or interpersonal duties.

Future Directions: This exploration opens several avenues for further research and practice. One direction is to apply Lacanian ethics to collective moral injuries – for example, communities grappling with historical injustices or veterans’ groups processing shared guilt. Lacan’s idea of the Real as that which “inhabits the symbolic order and at the same time disrupts it” suggests that collective discourse (Symbolic) must find ways to acknowledge national or cultural traumas that defy easy narration () (). Another avenue is interdisciplinary dialogue: integrating Lacanian psychoanalytic insights with findings from neuroscience or moral psychology could deepen our understanding of how moral emotions like guilt and shame operate in the brain when one’s fundamental values are violated. Additionally, the ethical implications of “not giving up on one’s desire” merit further philosophical debate: how can we ensure this principle is understood in a way that is compatible with social ethics and not misused to justify harm? Engaging with feminist and critical race perspectives, for instance, could test Lacan’s framework against moral injuries stemming from systemic oppression – do those injuries also reflect a confrontation with the Real, and does healing involve reclaiming a silenced desire or agency?

In conclusion, examining moral injury through Lacan’s Seminar VII has allowed us to see it not just as a psychological syndrome, but as a deeply philosophical and ethical predicament: a point where the psyche, morality, and the limits of human experience converge. This rigorous, structured analysis underscores that psychoanalysis, far from esoteric theory, can offer practical wisdom on ethical life. It reminds clinicians and ethicists alike that when it comes to moral suffering, we must address the wound in the human spirit – the “night of the Real” that underlies the daylit world of norms. By doing so, we open possibilities for healing that honor both the individual’s inner truth and their responsibility to others, navigating a path between self and Other, law and desire, that defines the very essence of being human.

References (Selected):

 
 
 

Comments

The

Undecidable

Unconscious

Contact us

bottom of page