Argumentative Essay On Holocaust Victims

But even with obligations to remember, it is considered harsh to expect trauma victims to deal with the burden of keeping their painful memories just for the sake of others, and the Council mentions this specifically during one of their hearings. This obligation seems to fall disproportionately on those who have to deal with more intense trauma than others. It is unfair to place the same obligation on, say, respectfully, car crash victims than on Holocaust victims. For victims, the memories are almost impossible to endure, but for others who hear about the Holocaust on a secondhand basis, society would also not be the same if the community did not know about it. Society feels an obligation to remember the event not because it will guide future

If people should see less importance in others’ pain, then hurtful acts will be seen as less hurtful than they really are. This type of thinking is evident in many mentally ill patients who have presented themselves in court in the past. A significant proportion of criminals dampen the horrible memory of committing the crime so that when they present themselves to the jury they are convinced that what they did was not as bad as people may thing. To cope, some criminals even succeed in convincing themselves that they didn’t even commit the crime (Abrahamson 1973). In the opposing argument, it is believed that the Council’s perspective is exactly why memory dampening should be utilized. It may seem like dampening drugs make life seem less traumatic but that’s because it actually makes life less traumatic. There is not much difference between treating a trauma victim with memory dampening drugs to make life seem less horrible and healing a war soldier with advanced technology to make war seem less