HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article
Front. Psychiatry
Sec. Psychological Therapy and Psychosomatics
This article is part of the Research TopicConceptualizing Moral Injury: theoretical models proposed to facilitate understanding and interventionView all 4 articles
Moral Orienting Systems: Reconceptualizing Moral Injury as Moral Disorientation
Provisionally accepted
Zachary Moon1*
L. Callid Keefe-Perry2- 1Brite Divinity School, Fort Worth, United States
- 2Boston College, Chestnut Hill, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Current conceptualizations of moral injury are limited by a reactive, symptom-based focus that risks pathologizing what are often systemic failures. This paper proposes a shift from a "triage model" to a proactive framework of Moral Orienting Systems (MOS). We define a moral orienting system as the dynamic stabilizing interplay of meaningful values, beliefs, behaviors, and relationships that shape moral identity. Drawing on chaplaincy experiences and interdisciplinary theory, we argue that moral wellbeing is not a static trait but a dynamic relation between an individual's moral stress and the stability and strength of their moral orientation. When systemic strength is sufficient to metabolize stress, the result is moral affirmation; when overwhelmed, the result is moral disorientation. We contrast this framework with existing measures (e.g., MIES, MIOS) to highlight their limitations in capturing chronic, non-event-based moral erosion. Finally, we close by noting the need for a Moral Orienting System Assessment (MOSA) as an operational tool to map these vectors, offering a multi-actor case study to demonstrate how this framework might guide systemic intervention and moral reorientation.
Keywords: moral disorientation, Moral distress, moral injury, Moral Orienting System, Moral stress, Systemic assessment
Received: 27 Oct 2025; Accepted: 06 Feb 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Moon and Keefe-Perry. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Zachary Moon
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.