Compassion, 'Rationality'

A recurring thing I see when people talk about compassion is for them to comment on how people are more likely to give and also likely to give more when it comes to a single individual than when it comes to helping a nation/community/ethnic group/other broad category, and then describe this as irrational or illogical, always stating that it would, 'of course', be 'more logical' to give to the larger group than to the individual.

But this is a false idea. When it comes to whether a behavior is rational or irrational, the question is if it moves the individual forward in accomplishing their goals. And in such cases, the people calling it 'sad' how people cannot be more rational in their compassion do not define or identify explicit goals.

In other words, their statements only hold true if you start from the assumption that all compassion is put forth with an intent to make the entire world a better place for all humans. In that scenario, it is most certainly irrational to be more willing to help an individual than a larger group, or an individual described in specific terms rather than ambiguous terms.

But it's a ridiculous assumption: in actual fact, their compassion is spontaneous, with no larger goal other than resolving a problem put in front of them that they have been offered a way to help solve. Again: it has no larger goal. Describing this behavior as irrational is a fundamental misrepresentation of humans and rationality, implicitly including without commentary a set of assumptions and principles that are, apparently, held by the people making these claims, but are not actually any kind of given.

The whole thing is like setting down a chessboard and its pieces in front of a five year old child, and when they pick up the knights and say “Horsey!” decry them as irrational (ie stupid) because they're not trying to win the game of chess!

But they're not trying to win a game of chess.

What's irrational about failing to do a thing you aren't intending to do in the first place?