Jejudo, South Korea
Notice you have a few typos in there:
Your first question is interesting but I wonder if the distinction is appropriate. Status in whatever its form is always a factor in human relations; thus, any academic question becomes personal in that respect alone. Still, the strongest and best arguments are ones that are deeply personal if only in that it changes your perspective of the world. All philosophy is personal. Even the old scholasticism argument: "How many angels can stand on a pin" becomes a rather important debate if you believe in angels.
How is it possible for anyone to argue in a civil manner if the above is true? I think the answer is in the mutual recognition of each other's value and an acceptance of the tentative nature of all discourse. Self-righteousness is the virus that destroys all interesting discussion.
Originally, I was going to respond to your second question with simply, "insecurity", but it's not that simple. Responsibility, at any level, requires response-ability, the necessity of taking action (or not taking action -- it's the same thing) and this entails repercussions of some sort. These repercussions can never be totally perceived by anybody who has human limitations and therein lies the rub. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Often times, what looks like an authoritarian display is simply a decision you disagree with.
If you take this to the political level, nobody really thinks they are 'evil', even Stalin thought he was doing the right thing.