Thus I would like to prove there is a moral obligation to help those living in severe poverty, but as the link above shows most people are too selfish to fulfill this obligation. It is self evident to assert that things like poverty, famine and disease cause suffering and problems for people. Under most circumstances, for sake of survival, there is no person who would want to suffer under this poverty and lack of resources. Humans naturally go for survival and desire to avoid such things, and many countries even strive to improve conditions to prove free education and even housing some times.
Therefore, unless con can prove otherwise, the natural desires to avoid suffering should apply to the regular persons. Then, let us move onto our moral obligation to help. It takes remarkably little effort to raise someone out of poverty — the Wikipedia article says that Poverty is $35/day,
while some first world country like US would have minimum wage of $15/hour in some locations, thus a mere two hours of work to raise someone out of poverty. To compare it to the suffering situation. Imagine a child was drowning and it only took you two hours of work to save his life. When those in poverty and starving, would this not be very similar to our situation here? Yet, most people would not give to charity to raise the people out of the situation.
There are some objections with the idea that other people are helping so you might not need to help. But that assumes that the other people are rescuing all those in poverty. The problem is still ongoing and there seems to always be someone who is needlessly suffering or even dying.