Do you have the moral duty to help the starving person in front of you, but not the starving person on the other side of the world?

I am really struggling with this concept. Let's consider two possible scenarios:<br><br>Scenario 1: Imagine a person dying from starvation right in front of you. They're lying on the ground and it's obvious that they haven't eaten in weeks. They look at you with big sad eyes pleading for you to help them. You can tell by the look in their eyes that they are in extreme suffering but you can also tell that they are a good person who has been dealt a really bad hand in life. Unfortunately, you can't help them because you don't have the necessary resources to help them. You are deeply saddened by this and move on.<br><br>Scenario 2: Imagine a person dying from starvation on the other side of the world. They are in extreme suffering, just like the first person. However, you can't see them and have no idea they even exist. The person is so far away that you have no way of knowing their name, personal characteristics, or the specific circumstances that have resulted in them being this way. Fortunately, you have the means to help this person but you also have no idea they exist.<br><br>So, here's the question: Do you have a moral duty to help the person in the first scenario, but not the second? If so, this is what I don't understand. It seems that, in the first scenario, you are guilty of neglecting your moral duty to help the starving person. However, in the second scenario, you are not guilty of neglecting your moral duty, but rather guilty of ignorance. It seems that it is easier to know what your moral duties are in the first scenario, but not the second scenario. It seems strange that your moral duties could be determined by factors of ignorance, distance, and visibility.