Search This Blog

Thursday, February 12, 2026

Injustice:

Why would it be unjust for a man who was abused his whole life by his parents spiritually, sexually and emotionally and who now has DID who commit a serious sin when he was being abused, to be held accountable for his sin while the truth about his abuse is in secrecy?

First, I want to say clearly: what you’re describing is profound trauma. Ongoing spiritual, sexual, and emotional abuse—especially by parents—can deeply fracture a person’s sense of self. The development of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is strongly associated with severe, chronic childhood trauma. So this isn’t a light or abstract question. It’s about moral responsibility under extreme harm.

Let’s break this down carefully.


1. Justice and Moral Responsibility

In most moral and legal frameworks, accountability depends on freedom and awareness.

If someone:

  • Was a child

  • Was being actively abused or controlled

  • Was dissociating due to trauma

  • Did not have meaningful freedom to choose

Then many ethical systems argue that their responsibility is reduced or fundamentally altered.

Why?

Because justice is tied to:

  • Intent

  • Capacity

  • Freedom of will

  • Understanding of consequences

If those are impaired—especially by severe trauma—then holding someone fully accountable becomes morally complex.


2. Dissociation and DID

With DID, actions may occur:

  • Under extreme stress

  • In altered states of consciousness

  • With memory fragmentation

  • Without full integration of identity

If a person was dissociated during the act, their subjective awareness and control may have been impaired. That does not automatically erase responsibility—but it changes how responsibility is understood.

Most modern psychology recognizes that trauma can drastically reduce a person’s capacity for self-regulation and judgment.


3. The Secrecy of Abuse

You asked specifically:

Why would it be unjust for him to be held accountable while the truth about his abuse is in secrecy?

Here’s the key issue:

Justice requires truth.

If the full context of abuse is hidden:

  • Others judge only the visible act

  • The coercion, trauma, and psychological fragmentation are unseen

  • The abusers remain morally invisible

  • The victim bears the visible blame

That creates distorted justice.

Holding someone fully accountable without acknowledging coercion and trauma risks:

  • Misplacing moral weight

  • Ignoring the causal chain

  • Protecting abusers through silence

  • Punishing the injured while excusing the powerful

That is why many would argue it is unjust.


4. Spiritual Perspective (if this is about sin in a religious sense)

In many religious traditions:

  • God judges the heart and knowledge

  • Coercion reduces culpability

  • Ignorance and trauma affect moral weight

  • Abuse of a child is considered a grave wrongdoing by the abuser

For example:

  • In Christian theology, mortal sin requires full knowledge and deliberate consent

  • In Islamic theology, accountability requires mental capacity and maturity

  • In Jewish law, coercion can remove guilt

  • In many traditions, children are not fully accountable in the same way as adults

If someone was:

  • A child

  • Under abuse

  • Dissociating

  • Acting from trauma

Many theologians would argue their culpability is diminished or fundamentally different.


5. The Deeper Question

Often underneath this question is something more personal:

“Am I evil because of what happened when I was being abused?”

Trauma can create:

  • Deep shame

  • False self-blame

  • Spiritual terror

  • Fear of condemnation

But abuse distorts agency. A child under sustained harm is not operating from the same freedom as a safe adult.

Justice that ignores trauma becomes cruelty.

True justice:

  • Acknowledges harm

  • Distinguishes victimization from free choice

  • Holds abusers responsible

  • Seeks restoration, not condemnation


6. A Hard Truth

Even if someone did something objectively wrong, two things can be true at once:

  1. The act was wrong.

  2. The person’s moral blame is mitigated or deeply complicated by abuse.

Justice is not the same as shame.
Accountability is not the same as condemnation.
And secrecy often protects perpetrators, not victims.


If this question is personal for you, I want to gently say:
Severe childhood abuse + DID + deep fear of sin often produces crushing internal self-judgment.

You are allowed to examine responsibility without destroying yourself.

If you'd like, you can tell me:

  • Are you asking from a legal perspective?

  • A religious one?

  • Or about your own experience?

I’ll meet you wherever this question is coming from.

No comments:

Post a Comment