Mental Illness and Morality in Essays

Is the cure to mental, emotional, psychological illness a moral assessment of the people in our lives?
Does our inner experience, feeling life, or our true self rely fundamentally on moral truth, despite our objections, beliefs, and ideologies?

The more that I discover and ask questions of people, the more this theory is bolstered by evidence. I don’t see a way that this theory can be proven as yet. Since psychological phenomena, experiences and thoughts are totally (or nearly so) unverifiable to anyone else, and people lie.
When I think over the undeniable pattern- and the truths passed down to us by past philosophers- “mental illness is the unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering” ;Jung- and that every instance of I’ve found of so-called legitimate suffering is more accurately the horror, pain and anger that results from being treated in an immoral way.
In other words, mental illness is the avoidance of identifying the immoral actors in one’s life.

An immoral actor can exist only in situations of UNchosen, or INvoluntary association. If we have an unchosen relationship to someone, that does not mean that they are automatically immoral. It is when that person uses their power and position to do violence against us that they become immoral. No strictly voluntary or chosen relationship can be immoral since both parties are participating in the interaction voluntarily; if violence occurs in a chosen relationship, then it is consentual whether implicitly or explicitly.
So immoral actors are those who initiate the use of force upon unwilling victims. This includes common criminals like thieves, rapists, murderers, and institutions like abusive parents and the State.
Among these immoral actors, the institutionalized are the worst because they without exception exempt themselves from morality altogether.

The manifestation of mental illness as I am using the term is firstly the inability to build an accurate concept of reality. Much of this crippling disability is created by the institutionalized immoral actors that benefit directly from that disability. Ie, parents and the State. Neither child abuse nor a government would be possible if even a small fraction of the population retained their natural ability to accurately identify immoral actors. Ironically, that is the reason for the near ubiquitous incidence of child abuse- to ensure the continued existence of immoral institutions. And it continues to be a theme that the most immoral institutions benefit the most from child abuse while the most voluntary relationships tend to suffer. This is reflected within the emotional, psychological experience of the individual.
To be a moralist is to be a voluntaryist. To the degree that an individual has healed their ability to create accurate concepts of reality, is the degree to which that individual is capable of identifying immoral actors. Knowing this, it is no surprise that emotional dysregulation, disorders and dissociative problems are among epidemic proportions in cultures and societies which do not physically control their populations- where governments instead install self regulating programming. Through child abuse, immoral institutions destroy the child’s natural ability to recognize harm to themselves by demonizing and making an enemy to that child their spontaneous experience of emotion. Immoral actors always prefer a compliant, ignorant victim to an assertive, knowledgeable one.
Psychologists have much to answer for in their historical defense of child abuse, and their support of the State. Even Freud, perhaps the most famous, was bullied into excusing the heinous crimes perpetrated on his patients as children after he received threats from the powerful and influential perpetrators of these crimes. So it goes that those of us who would rather avoid identifying the criminals in our lives who wield the terrifying power to punish us choose to suffer psychologically instead.