Moral damages in the present era are among the types of damages that affect vast aspects of the lives of the injured individuals, leading to depression and mental health disorders in the victims. Despite the existence of methods for compensating such damages, judicial courts have not yet succeeded in satisfying the victims of moral damages. This is because many of the compensation methods themselves carry shortcomings, rendering these approaches ineffective. In this research, the author, using a descriptive-analytical method and a library-based approach, has examined the pathology of moral damage compensation in Iranian law. The findings indicate that the absence of a comprehensive criterion for measuring moral damages, the failure to restore the previous state, the lack of apology as a method, the failure to distinguish between psychological and moral damages, the ambiguity in achieving the victim's satisfaction, the unclear process of restoring reputation, and the lack of compensatory justice in each method are among the issues in compensating moral damages in Iranian law. These shortcomings stem from incorrect analyses of the nature of moral damages, which, by considering the various needs of the injured individuals and addressing them, along with ensuring the four types of justice (distributive, procedural, interactional, and informational justice) can be resolved.