I would say it is impossible to remove people's subjective self-interest.
And using the desperate, unfortunate and downright awful situations of others around the world depends on what this is being used for. Sometimes as a perspective inducer it makes sense, other times it's very arrogant and disturbing, such as when first world mothers use starving African children as a tool to get their unruly brood to eat their vegetables.
As usual this is a question of personal judgement. But, do we ever pitch it right? Certainly not all the time, you have to pick the right time, whatever that happens to be....usually when a bunch of circumstances align at the right moment I would suppose.
And many of us may stop and think for a moment; a brief pause in our lives so that we can consider something elsewhere. But that moment soon passes...after all it is 'elsewhere' as previously mentioned. Out of sight, out of mind.
Im as guilty of this as anyone, no denial here. Unfortunately we find ourselves ignoring some humanitarian causes just because it is more comfortable to do so, it allows many of us to get on with our lives in a little bubble of half-ignorance. Is this wrong or right?
Morally it is both in my view, because there is shit in the world and hard times, we try our best, but the motives of ourselves and those around us are multifaceted monstrosities. Could I devote my life to a cause that I cannot see a true solution to? Isn't this just proof of my laziness and arrogance towards such causes?
Throwing money alone does nothing, but this is not a new insight, more of us would have to get our arses into gear and physically help set up infrastructures to support such places.
But we dont...because it is easier not to. Our lives are, for the most part, comfortable and it is hard to step outside of that for something you may not feel that strongly for. Because it is 'over there' not 'over here'. A letter's difference does a problem ours make.