"Distant" morality? Watch
everything comes down to survival, yes? so who is more likely to help you live or help you die: the person at your feet or the one on the other side of the planet?
(short answer, dead bodies are a cost on society, literally. a rotting corpse spreads disease; the less people you have in your village, the less protection you have from enemies; less chance your village will procreate and survive, etc.)
but i don't understand the 'shape your world' part. taking care of your neighbour and not someone in another country has always been, so you would have to say it's 'shaped our world' since the beginning of time. except i would argue it's easier to help someone in another country these days, now that we have internet and you can send money almost instantaneously. we also have global news so we know (somewhat) what's happening around the world, or at least we can find out. couldn't do that for most of history.
Makes you do a big thoncc
I disgaree that you are more likely to do that. There are probably more charities sending aid abroad than aid this country.
And feeding people in the UK probably isn't even covered by charity. So it depends on vigilant, caring, neighbours committed to where they live who are increasingly in shorter supply.
So I propose that many people who contribute to charities aiding people abroad might be living next door to someone who wouldn't have died if it wasn't for their neighbour not showing persistent concern for them.
It probably won't be much out of hunger but could be out of alcoholism or suicide or accident after a long period of profound sadness.