while it may be magnanimous (if not inconsistant) of you to hold yourself up to a different standard than you hold others, i wonder if it is difficult to reach the mouths of those starving children from up so high on that horse.
let me show you what i hear & see about what you say. these are the words i hear:
“I didn't want to judge” and “if you are not currently giving to any urgent need…the proposal would be positive.” but this is the action i see: “a bigger nest egg that I can fall back on if needed seems self serving in my opinion.”
how is it that your plan of action is less self-serving than that of another when considering how you would feel about yourself were you to stop being so current in your charity, regardless of perceived immediacy? is the guilt which motivates the self-righteous any less sinful than the greed of the self-serving? perhaps one for some is easier to swallow but it is no less a poison.
not to diminish you or your efforts, but someone helped feed the starving before you and someone else will be there afterwards. though i think it is true that your action reduces suffering in the world, it does not end it and some might argue that feeding a person a fish and not teaching that person to fish merely perpetuates their suffering instead of reducing it. but i will assume for the sake of your argument that there are not that many places left to fish and so it is good that you help feed the starving now just like it is good that others try to build their wealth so that they will not become charity cases themselves and that they will be able to help even more tomorrow when you have run out of fish.
though i trust that you do not wish to judge another, i am confused as to why you do not thank them but instead chastise them in your repeated confession that you think their action more self-serving then your own. for even though you help now and so will not have as much funds to help later when maybe the world might need your help more, well, i suppose, as you say, “that is better than nothing” too.