People often comfortably and confidently use relative privation arguments to ignore the issues of others by pointing out much more worse problems. This fallacy has been around for centuries and is even considered a valid argument by many. I hear it several times a week in one way or another, we all do. Let’s explore a common scenario:

Amy: “I took a cold shower today.”
Ganga: “There are many people around the world who can’t even afford to shower.”

Ganga likely believes she is making a valid point and advocating for those without basic amenities. Her motivation could be jealousy, manipulation, guilt-inducing, or self-satisfaction from feeling she stands up for the poor. We won’t delve into her subconscious motivations. Instead, let’s focus on the logical fallacy in her argument, regardless of the motivation.

Relative Privation Explained

Relative privation is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out the existence of a more significant problem. In the example above, Ganga’s response to Amy’s cold shower is a classic case of this fallacy. Amy’s choice to take a cold shower is her personal decision, and she has every right to use her resources and opportunities as she sees fit. Ganga, however, manipulates or discourages Amy’s self-care by highlighting an unrelated, more prominent issue.

This type of ‘guilt-induced manipulation’ may not be deliberate but rather a result of ignorance and simply following social trends without critical thinking. Here’s another example:

Amy: “My wrist hurts.”
Ganga: “There are several people in the war field who lost their limbs, and you just talk about your wrist?”

By bringing up a completely independent and irrelevant issue, Ganga minimizes the importance of Amy’s wrist pain. Ganga should have addressed Amy’s wrist pain directly, as it needs attention. If Ganga responded by saying that her wrist is still important and needs attention, society might view her as mocking or being insensitive to soldiers who have lost their lives or limbs. She could be labeled as selfish, even though she just wants care for her wrist. It’s absurd how society can be sometimes, isn’t it?

Amy: “I don’t want the rest of my food as I am full.” (She bought the food intending to eat it, but she couldn’t finish it. She is not deliberately wasting it, nor did she buy it to waste it.)
Ganga: “There are many people in Somalia who can’t afford this food, and you waste it?”

The fallacy lies in comparing Amy’s inability to finish her food with the dire circumstances of people in Somalia who lack access to food.

Amy’s decision to stop eating because she is full is a personal and reasonable choice. She did not purchase the food with the intent to waste it, but rather found herself unable to finish it. Ganga’s response, while potentially well-meaning, shifts the focus from Amy’s specific situation to a global issue, effectively minimizing Amy’s personal experience and guilt-tripping her for an action that wasn’t deliberate.

Let’s look at five more common examples of relative privation arguments and possible counterarguments:

Amy “I feel stressed about my job.”
Ganga: “Many people don’t even have jobs.” Amy: Stress is a valid experience, regardless of job status. Everyone’s stress is personal and deserves attention.

Amy: “I’m upset about my breakup.”
Ganga: “There are people who have never experienced love.” Amy: Emotional pain from a breakup is genuine and should be acknowledged without comparison to others’ experiences.

Amy: “I’m worried about my grades.”
Ganga: “Some people can’t afford an education.” Amy: Academic concerns are important for personal growth and future opportunities. They should not be dismissed.

Amy: “I’m having a hard time dealing with my anxiety.”
Ganga: “Others have it worse with severe mental illnesses.” Amy: Anxiety is a legitimate mental health issue that deserves support and understanding, irrespective of the severity of other conditions.

Amy “I need a break; I’ve been working nonstop.”
Ganga: “Some people work multiple jobs and never get a break.” Amy: Everyone’s need for rest and recuperation is valid. Personal well-being should not be trivialized by comparing it to others’ situations.

How to Handle Relative Privation Fallacies

When confronted with a relative privation fallacy, understand that it’s a fallacy and, if possible, mention it. Don’t over-explain, as open-minded individuals will recognize it with just a trigger. Simply saying “Relative Privation” is often enough.

Remember, you can’t change anyone, yes, it’s a fact. That’s not your problem. People change themselves! Accept this and move on. Your duty is to maintain an open mind and live as an example. Those who observe will notice and may change themselves accordingly. In the end, acknowledging each person’s unique experiences and challenges is crucial. Dismissing someone’s struggles by comparing them to more significant issues only undermines their feelings and fails to address the immediate concern. Let’s strive for compassion and understanding in our interactions, recognizing that every problem, big or small, deserves consideration.