Appeal to trauma

{{logicnav}}
The '''appeal to trauma''' is an informal [[logical fallacy]] and [[rhetorical]] tool used to justify the actions of someone or some group ''[[ex post facto]]'' by citing past abuse or traumas, real or not, experienced by the person or group in question.

Trauma is generally understood to be a big issue, to the point of it even granting moral authority to the traumatized.<ref name=mowitt-envy>Mowitt, J. (2000). Trauma Envy. ''Cultural Critique'', 46, 272–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354416</ref> This makes trauma a factor when groups and individuals gain sympathy and support in the name of [[social justice]], or justice in general. It also makes the "power" of trauma in persuasion and the soliciting of support an object of envy at times. Sometimes, the "other side" – whether in terms of the perpetrator of trauma, or simply a more general side of a [[culture war]] or perhaps an international dispute – will strive to cast itself as the "true" or greater trauma survivor for that reason. Others may also opportunistically play the trauma card.

Questioning the role of trauma in lives and events may seem heartless or unenlightened, making references to it effective for manipulative purposes. Of course, such cynical "trauma ploys" cheapen the meaning of trauma and thereby hurt the causes of the genuinely traumatized. In [[culture war]] and when talk of trauma becomes visible in mainstream culture and media, it can become something many looking for extra sympathy reach for. In American culture war, [[woo-meister]]s in the cultural left have cheapened trauma in such a way and even invented pseudoscientific theories for how people are born already shaped by [[white supremacy]] and trauma.<ref name=rosen-commentary>{{cite web|url=https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/trauma-political-tool/|title=How Trauma Became a Political Tool|last=Rosen|first=Christine|date=August 2022|publisher=Commentary}}</ref> Meanwhile, the conservative backlash against "[[woke]]" and social justice paints other groups as the real victims and survivors, and as those silenced by oppressors.<ref name=muteness>[https://www.parapraxismagazine.com/articles/muteness-envy Why Is No One Talking about Muteness Envy?], Katie Kadue, ''Parapraxis''</ref>

==Form==
An appeal to trauma argument takes the following form:
{{syl
|2=Entity '''X''' commits action '''Y'''.
|4=Entity '''X''' justifies action '''Y''' by traumatic past event '''W'''.
|5=P3|6=(possibly [[enthymeme|unstated]]) Trauma such as '''W''' is enough to explain or justify '''X''' and similar.
|7=C|8=Therefore, entity '''X''' is truly justified in committing action '''Y''', or it can at least be excused.
}}

When the entity in the argument is a country or some other collective rather than an individual person, there's another unstated assumption and fallacy involved too. This is the false assumption that groups and individuals are truly psychologically the same, a [[category error|composition fallacy]].

A variant of this argument is less concerned with moral ''justification for'' actions and mainly seeks to account for why behavior happened, which is then said to be ''explained by'' trauma. This may or may not be fallacious depending on the specifics, but is often tied to an [[Pseudopsychology|overly simplistic view of human behavior]]. The cliché example would be a criminal, or perhaps a juvenile delinquent, who is said to have experienced something bad in childhood, supposedly explaining everything bad this person has done. Such explanations are often used manipulatively, the "explaining" seeking to influence those who judge the behavior into viewing it as "justification", blurring the line between the two variations of the argument.

Related types of arguments using dodgy psychology to defend the actions of individuals include claims that poor self-esteem made the behavior inevitable or even justified, and unfalsifiable claims including other kinds of psychological compensation.

==Examples==
===In politics===
*The {{wpl|Naqba||,}} [[Israeli]] occupation of Palestinian territories, violent and illegal actions by Israeli settlers, etc., justify the October 7<sup>th</sup> [[Hamas]] incursions and slaughter and sexual assault of Israeli civilians. Or conversely, the violent massacres by Hamas, rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, Palestinian [[suicide bombing]]s, etc., justify Israeli settler colonialism, the bombing of any number of Palestinian refugees, the sexual assault and forced disappearances of Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers,<ref>[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against "Israel/oPt: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls"] - United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (February 2024).</ref> and/or the total destruction of the Gaza Strip.
*[[9/11]] was justified or natural and acceptable in light of horrible, collective traumas arising as a consequence of [[American]] support for Israel, or American support for [[Saudi Arabia]], or American [[imperialism]] in general.
*The [[Iraq War]] was justified because [[Saddam Hussein]] had done terrible things to his people, or as "[[jingoism|payback]]" for the September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2001 terrorist hijackings.
*[[Nazi]]s used the [[bullshit]] [[stab-in-the-back legend]] to justify their [[antisemitism]].

===In the Bible===
The idea of appealing to trauma can be traced back to the {{wpl|Code of Hammurabi||,}} but is better known from the [[Bible]]. In the [[Old Testament]], it appears in [[Exodus]] as "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" ({{bible|Exodus|21|24}}); Exodus goes into some detail, particularly about misbehaving oxen ({{bible|Exodus|21|24|36}}). It also appears in Old Testament books {{bible|Leviticus|24|20}} and {{bible|Deuteronomy|19|21}}. The appeal to revenge was later repudiated in the [[New Testament]] in {{bible|Matthew|5|38|39}}:
{{cquote|Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.}}
A more modern Biblically-based argument against the appeal to trauma was put forth in opposition to the [[death penalty]] by [[British]] politician {{wpl|George Perry Graham}} in 1914:<ref name=qi>[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/27/eye-for-eye-blind/ An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind] (December 27, 2010) ''Quote Investigator''.</ref>
{{cquote|If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless.}}
A more concise version of this sentiment appears in Louis Fischer's biography of [[Mahatma Gandhi]] (''The Life of Mahatma Gandhi'') in explaining the [[Sanskrit]] word {{wpl|Satyagraha|''satyagraha''|.}}<ref name=qi/><ref>''The Life of Mahatma Gandhi'' by Louis Fischer (1950) Harper & Row.</ref>{{rp|77}}
{{cquote|Satyagraha is the exact opposite of the policy of an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye which ends in making everybody blind.}}
The statement, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." is consequently sometimes erroneously attributed to Gandhi, particularly because of the eponymous biopic ''Gandhi''.<ref name=qi/> [[Martin Luther King]] did however write in his book ''Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story'', "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."<ref name=qi/><ref>''Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story'' by Martin Luther King, Jr. (1958) Harper & Row.</ref>{{rp|213}}

==See also==
* [[Two wrongs make a right]]
* [[Blaming the victim]]
* ''[[Tu quoque]]''
* [[Whataboutism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}
{{logfal}}
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Informal fallacies