Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue "the one" whose plight comes to their attention. These same good people, however, often become numbly indifferent to the plight of "the one" if that person is just "one of many" as part of a bigger problem. Put another way, we know that one life is very important, but the difference between 87 and 88 lives at risk feels insignificant.
What are the causes of this discrepancy between how we believe we should value life saving and how research shows we do value saving lives? How do we work to combat this--as individuals, scholars, journalists, communities, organizations, governments, and as the citizenry of a globalized world?
The disproportionate focus on "one story" is very clearly demonstrated in the case of the Syrian refugee crisis. Global attention and outrage was focused on the death of toddler Alan Kurdi on September 2, 2015. This was despite the context of enormous suffering and death of the Syrian population.
While donations to the Red Cross spiked after these stories, the world has not acted as a concerted whole to address these challenges. In this sense, we collectively cared immensely about this one person's death, but the hundreds of thousands of people in his same situation do not move us to act.
"‘If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act’: Psychic Numbing and Genocide." Paul Slovic in Judgement and Decision Making, 2007.
"Why You’re Numb to the Horrors in Syria, According to an Empathy Researcher." Susie Poppick in Mic, February 21, 2018.
Read a description on psychic numbing written by Adam Smith in 1759.