The term psychological torture is often juxtaposed with physical torture, as if they are mutually exclusive, and is erroneously perceived as less egregious due to the absence of visible wounds on its subjects. The term psychological torture presents moral legal, and ethical complexities, with scholars across disciplines grappling to establish common definitions. From a moral stance, when psychological torture is framed in a manner that suggests only physical torture is harmful, this eases the public’s moral barometer, absolving the perpetrators. Attempts to downplay torture by likening it to hazing or establishing a hierarchy of severity undermines its dehumanizing effects. This chapter argues that by using deliberate and nuanced language in ethical codes, international instruments, conventions, and treaties, it forestalls intentional misuse, positing that when language is too rigid and concrete, violators may take advantage of legal loopholes. Cases detailing helping professionals’ involvement in psychological warfare are illuminated. The chapter concludes by examining therapeutic jurisprudence and ethical implications of psychological torture via distinct approaches to Black and African psychology.