I imagine commenters will find it hard to know what to say, and this isn't the occasion for abstruse intellectual discussion about the importance of having local as well as global compassion. But I'm sure everyone will find it good to be reminded of the relationship between and importance of the two. Thank you for the post, and I hope it doesn't sound banal or insincere to say that my thoughts are with your friend.

This reminds me, a friend of mine recently introduced me to "philanthrolocalism', which sometimes frames itself as opposed to the global poverty orientation of effective altruists.

After thinking about how to frame in utilitariany, consequentialisty terms as to why this idea might be correct, I realized that there is probably a comparative advantage in local giving. A clear example is when a parents care towards a child has more impact than an abstract government's entity's aid towards a child.

I think the advantage comes from two things:

1) Privileged Information Edge:

You probably don't know much about malaria net minutia, but you are certainly in the tippity-top 0.01% of well informed people concerning the troubles of your neighbor.

You are specially positioned to identify those key moments when 5 units of personalized, highly targeted effort from you might outweigh 500 units of blunt effort from an abstract entity. Perhaps those same 5 units might do more good in an absolute sense if you sent it overseas, but few other people's 5 units of effort would be more effective than yours within the local scenario. (As in, your $5 might buy 2000 utils globally and 1000 utils locally, but your $5 might be the only $5 which can buy the local utils so cheaply.)

(As an aside, I think this is why GiveDirectly and other forms of putting power directly in people's hands end up being on the EA radar. The place where this Privileged Information Edge is strongest is when you are helping your own self.)

A secondary consideration is that you can be more certain that you are doing good. As effective altruists we trust our meta-charity organizaitons to be as certain of this as possible, but historically, misguided and corrupt charity is a thing, and the reason it's a thing is because people are too detached from that which they are trying to help. I personally do trust the meta-charities so this isn't a factor for me, but it's worth raising.

2) Self-investment, strong communities, and reciprocal altruism.

If you give locally, there's a higher chance you'll later get a return on investment which is equal or greater to what you put in, kicking off a virtuous cycle. Just like it doesn't do any good for an individual to "burn out" and give everything to charity in such a way that they hinder their earning potential, a community should also not "burn out" and try to maintain these virtuous cycles within itself.

The church is a good example of this in action - it draws funds from a source that probably wouldn't go elsewhere in the absence of the church to perpetuate itself, and seems to give back to its members more than it takes, with additional good on the side.

We sometimes dismiss these considerations as "warm fuzzies", implying that they are primarily egocentric and focused on making us feel good. While donating to, say, surgeries for puppies or something would rightly be considered "warm fuzzies", helping your neighbor is much more than that. It's quite possible that no one could or would help them the way you did, and it's also very likely that your neighbor helps you back in kind...and if they do, you've essentially just done good for free, or possibly even for net personal profit. I'd say that's actually extremely effective altruism. (If you're trying to get the most good for your effort and opportunity cost, you really can't beat free.)

Ultimately, I'm still not a philanthro-localist. I'd still be one to strongly recommend prioritizing global poverty over local soup kitchens. However, if there are any charitable opportunities that one happens to be intimately connected to (or has the opportunity to become more intimately connected to), especially one that ignites virtuous cycles and reciprocation and pays dividends back to you in some way...especially given that it often costs you nothing in opportunity costs and possibly even helps you, I'd consider it to be a very effective form of altruism.

Which is a very long winded way to agree: If you consider yourself an effective altruist, then being extra-nice to your neighbor or family members or other near-people really is a part of that. It's not a separate category of thing: It's altruism, and it can be pretty effective. Just don't forget how to multiply!

Beautiful post. Peter Singer has written that EAs use reason over empathy, but I think this post reminds us that while we deliberate with reason, we often need to motivate ourselves through empathy.