The Power of Personal

I was having a debate with someone the other day about the Insulate Britain protests (again) and was asked if I would be miffed if one of my parents, or children, died on the way to hospital through being delayed by the protests.

Obviously, I'd be very miffed, in the same manner I'd be miffed at someone killing a close relative of mine and him not being hung, drawn and quartered - because it's personal, and personal means a lot to me, personally. However, my opponent's argument displayed that, while he was concerned for the potential for just one death, he was oblivious to the actual 40,000 annual UK deaths from pollution. It could be argued that he was unaware of the 40,000 annual deaths, but he persisted in his anger at the protesters even after he became aware of the fact.

This concern (and unconcern) showed my opponent had an agenda and it had bugger all to do with either the potential for deaths or indeed actual deaths, but more to do with personal inconvenience. The only way to make his point was to make it personal, rather than impersonal; the personal of a potential and hypothetical relative and the impersonal of an anonymous, yet factual, 40,000.

Making something personal is very powerful from a psychological perspective. Conversely, people can do some really nasty things when interaction becomes impersonal - like pressing a button to kill several thousand people remotely with a drone, as opposed to being face-to-face with an opponent.

For some individuals, 135,000 Covid deaths are immaterial when it comes to keeping the economy going; however, those individuals would become more focussed on the 135,000 should one of them have been a close relative. 

How would my questioner feel if he were the father of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who was proven to have died from pollution in South London in 2014 and had it listed on her death certificate - the first person to have this listed on a death certificate?

Objectivity is the key in such arguments. Subjectivity clouds the facts. If one hypothetical person is important, then the inescapable and logical conclusion is that 40,000 real people (and a planet) must be vastly more important. If not, then there's a logical inconsistency and an alternative agenda within your thinking.

When you're asked to put yourself out on behalf of others, it's simply too much for some. We live within the cult of the individual, which is antithetical to social harmony and civilization.

Analyse and discuss.