A Trauma-Informed Reframing of Morality
From Good and Evil to Eustress and Distress
Abstract
Traditional notions of good and evil often rely on rigid moral dualisms that obscure the psychological and contextual origins of human behaviour. This short paper offers a trauma-informed reinterpretation of morality by comparing "good" to eustress, e.g., positive, growth-oriented stress, and "evil" to distress, e.g., harmful, overwhelming stress. Drawing on psychological stress theory, trauma literature, and moral psychology, it argues that destructive behaviour often emerges not from innate malevolence but from chronic distress, disconnection, and moral injury. Case studies and research on trauma, empathy erosion, and stress resilience support this framework. By reframing moral breakdowns through the lens of stress and coping capacity, the paper advocates for a restorative justice system and social ethics rooted in healing, compassion, and structural understanding.
Introduction
The dichotomy of good versus evil has long served as a moral compass in philosophy, religion, and public discourse. Yet, this binary lens often oversimplifies complex human behaviour, reducing actions to static categories rather than dynamic responses to environmental, psychological, and social pressures. In contrast, psychological research offers a more nuanced framework: the distinction between eustress, beneficial stress that motivates growth, and distress, harmful stress that overwhelms and motivates destructiively. This paper proposes that the phenomena often labelled as good or evil can be more productively understood as responses to differing types and thresholds of stress. Such a reframing allows for a deeper, trauma-informed understanding of moral behaviour and its breakdown.
Eustress and Moral Agency
Eustress, as defined by Selye (1974), refers to positive stress that challenges individuals within their capacity to cope. It fosters resilience, goal attainment, and personal growth. In moral terms, eustress is often associated with ethical courage, altruism, and transformative resistance to injustice. Victor Frankl (1985), in his work with Holocaust survivors, emphasized that meaning-making under adversity, not the absence of suffering, is the cornerstone of moral strength. Individuals experiencing eustress often respond with creativity, compassion, and civic engagement, even under pressure.
This can be seen in the actions of civil rights leaders, humanitarian workers, or whistleblowers who endure personal risk for a larger moral purpose. Their actions are not born of comfort, but of stress that is metabolized into virtue. This aligns with theories of post-traumatic growth, which suggest that under the right conditions, adversity can enhance psychological and moral development (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
Distress and the Collapse of Moral Capacity
In contrast, distress refers to stress that exceeds an individual's ability to cope or integrate the experience. Chronic or traumatic distress can lead to emotional dysregulation, empathy erosion, and maladaptive behaviours. When left unaddressed, this form of stress is sometimes mischaracterized as “evil.” Trauma researcher Bessel van der Kolk (2014) notes that people subjected to long-term abuse or deprivation often become disconnected from their bodies, relationships, and moral frameworks. Judith Herman (1992) similarly describes how trauma can fragment identity and lead to profound relational and ethical disorientation.
Moral injury, a concept originally developed to describe veterans who witness or participate in ethically transgressive acts, offers further insight. Litz et al. (2009) argue that when individuals are placed in situations that violate their core values, particularly under institutional or survival pressure, they may experience guilt, shame, and despair that eventually erode their moral compass. Mass violence, criminal behaviour, or even passive neglect can often be traced to prolonged distress rather than inherent wickedness.
Implications for Justice and Society
Understanding harmful behaviour through the lens of distress shifts the conversation from punishment to prevention and healing. Rather than vilifying individuals who “snap,” it becomes possible to ask what stressors pushed them past their limits. This trauma-informed perspective aligns with the principles of restorative justice, which seeks to repair harm by addressing root causes, relational dynamics, and systemic factors (Zehr, 2002).
Moreover, this reframing compels us to examine the environments that generate chronic distress, such as poverty, racism, war, and institutional betrayal. Structural violence produces distress on a mass scale, and pathologizing the responses of its victims without addressing its causes is both unethical and ineffective. A justice system built on this understanding would prioritize mental health care, community support, and social equity over retribution.
Conclusion
Reframing good and evil as eustress and distress allows for a more compassionate, psychologically informed understanding of human behaviour. Rather than casting individuals as inherently virtuous or malevolent, this model recognizes behaviour as a reflection of stress responses shaped by personal capacity and environmental context. It challenges society to move beyond punitive moralism and toward systems of support and understanding that promote resilience, integration, and healing. By understanding evil not as an essence but as a cry from chronic overwhelm, we move closer to a world where goodness is not demanded but cultivated.
References
Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. Washington Square Press.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence, from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books.
Litz, B. T., Stein, N., Delaney, E., Lebowitz, L., Nash, W. P., Silva, C., & Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: A preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(8), 695–706.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Lippincott.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.