It seems like, whenever I bring up the importance of donating to global health charities in casual conversation, people almost always say one of two things. Either they say that we should help people in our own community instead of people who are faraway or they say that effective global health charities don't actually exist.

When people say that we should help people in our community instead, I'll usually mention that it's far easier to help people in Sub-Saharan Africa than in our local community. Sometimes, I'll also state that I view myself as a member of a global community of all the living beings on this Earth and that, as such, to me, helping people in my community means helping people in Sub-Saharan Africa.

When people say that effective global health charities don't actually exist, I usually say that these charities have independent third parties do research on how effective they are and that extensive research has been done to determine what the very best charities are. Although there are charities that don't do much good, the very best charities are extraordinarily good. 

I think it's pretty hard to convince people of the importance of helping people who are faraway since most people aren't exposed to much arguments for impartiality. On the other hand, it feels to me like there should be a relatively straightforward argument that would convince most people but that effective global charities exist, although I'm not aware of what such an argument would look like. Maybe, I'm a little naive for thinking that such an argument exists.

Anyways, I'm curious how do you guys respond when people make these sorts of criticisms?