This is a tricky subject but I’d say that yeah I agree with you and those dork blogs that consuming luxuries while others suffer is in a sense a moral failing. Sure it doesn’t make a large difference on a global scale, and maybe being mentally healthier could put you in a better position to help people in the long run, but I’d say this is just pretty lame copium to soothe the glaring cognitive dissonance. It’s hard to swallow but I don’t see any way around it.

I would also say that this has nothing at all to do with materialism. The drowning child thing isn’t a flawed thought experiment like the utility monster, it’s something that could happen to any of us any day, and it’s not “materialist” to sit back and refuse to help because you don’t want to go down a slippery slope of being on the hook for every drowning child. Your individual actions do have moral weight, even if it doesn’t affect society as a whole. That’s the whole point of doing praxis- we’re not all going to be a Lenin. We have to make peace with this somehow, and it’s not by refusing to consider the scenario at all.

For me the way out of this trap is to just accept that acting in a morally consistent way is not really part of being human. Like, although I care about others and try to comfort the hurting and so on - probably more than most people - if I’m being honest, at some point my personal comfort and mental health are just a higher priority for me than doing good for others. And the only reason I’d agree to ruin my phone to save the drowning child is because I would be emotionally unable to deal with seeing them die in front of me. We’re selfish, I don’t know what to say. If it’s any consolation, nobody else is perfect either.

I second the advice to touch grass btw. I think this whole issue is a realization that hits everyone when they start looking into philosophy of ethics. It’s overwhelming but life goes on. Eventually you learn to accept that you’re not really as good as you thought you were but still try to do as much good as you can. There are no pat answers.

but from the perspective shown by the trolley problem or whatever, i am basically killing people when i choose to do something selfish instead of helping them not die. so the 35000 children dying every day are at least partially my fault. i could save dozens of them from early childhood diseases just by sending enough money for medicine to survive. i basically killed a dozen people today

on second thought this is probably true, but it also implies that everyone on the planet has probably “killed” someone at least a hundred times (especially if we count choosing to eat to not starve instead of giving) so im not sure if any of this matters. moral nihilism might be it at that point