I don't find it confusing. Different people will do vastly different things in different situations, that are based on vastly different reasoning and lead to vastly different results (e.g. harm or relief). Decisions can be evaluated by their logic and their results, but that process isn't the same as whether they're emotionally understandable. Because in this system, unlike the logic it is distinct from, they all are - to leave is (as distinct from how it would end the harm), to stay is (as distinct from how it would not end the harm), and even to abuse is (as distinct from it being wrong as fuck). That's my personal concept of it - that the painful and the empowering ones are in terms of the same basic emotions we're all capable of, so one can't be comprehensible while another isn't. That the most painful things we do are still comprehensible is exactly the reason why they suck, and why life on earth sucks (although it is also so much more). The number of "why"s we could come up with by combining these emotions in different ways could go on for literal days, but this is about OP's own reason to stay or go.
IME, the most helpful thoughts when I am down about things I put up with for too long in the past are along the lines of:
"What you did made sense within your personal context, and in the context of humanity. But anything would, so why not relax about that and pick an approach for next time that on top of that brings you more happiness and relief, and perhaps puts a nice sharp boot heel into harmful crap like what they did. How about this one? Let's do it together (self alongside self, as this all is said while talking to oneself)."
A neat thing about that approach is how while it doesn't reference or explicitly try to sort out the logical and practical differences between one approach and another, somehow the desirable results and logical solidity just kind of congeal on their own as a byproduct.