I'm not sure that it is something that can be "won", by anyone. I don't particularly expect to convince you that my own moral guidelines are any righter than your own, just as you probably don't expect to convince me of yours (or at last, the one you hold out as being in opposition to mine). If our morals differ, it's inevitable that we'll disagree on who is morally right. It's an interesting discussion, though.
A second isn't a very long time. I'd probably be willing to spend a second if it would seriously help someone in my vicinity. But consider: a second multiplied by how many millions or billions of people? (for the curious, a billion seconds would be 30 years) If you take it to the logical conclusion, I'd have to dedicate my life to the benefit of random people. We could argue over whether or not it is right to do so, but if you seriously hold this view, why are you wasting your time here?
When I look at it personally, there are only so many people I can help, and so it comes down to picking who, and how much, and whether it's better to help one random person live, or another less random person be happy. These are moral choices. If you have an absolute sense of morals, they may be simple ones.
MetropolitanDonut holds that the level of need is the most important thing - presumably believing in the greatest good for the greatest number. That is a fair choice, but it is not the only one. They offer no argument for why it is morally superior, but instead accept it as deriving "obviously" from an axiom they hold. Well, I prefer to help those in my "local community". If their physiological needs are already satisfied, so much the better, as I can focus on more interesting things than buying them soup.
Since you want an example . . . say I was to help fund the
Ursa Majors (I believe the conventions hosting it have that covered nowadays). Does this benefit me personally? Yes, but only fairly indirectly, by promoting the development of great furry works, and bringing attention to the fandom as a whole. The concrete value I get from it (if any) is probably significantly less than the amount that I would expend on it.* The people it benefits most are those it celebrates, who are clearly furry fans - but who are unlikely to include me, as they don't run a "best furry wiki editor" award, or even one for best anthropomorphic website.
Note that the original "charity" that kicked off this discussion has very little to do with helping the most needy in the world, but instead has a decidedly large amount of self-interest for the group donating. Uncle Sam doesn't seem to care that much, and perhaps that's a reasonable mark for what US society considers a shared good - one which we can deduct from our taxes. After all, taxes are merely a forced method of giving towards a goal that is widely accepted by society as a common good, so only something equally good should be allowed to replace it. Their
definition for that is any "religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or fostering national or international amateur sports, or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Clearly, what is strictly called "charity" is not the only thing seen as good in this society.
* Though this gets into how much you value time or money - does your valuation matter, or how much it's worth to those you give it to? Does it only count if you'd notice it, and if so, why? etc.