According to the pure mathematics of utilitarianism, then, there is very little debate regarding this issue. No matter what the circumstance, a person who is experiencing true biologically-driven hunger due to a lack of enough food to eat will get far more utility out of the most basic morsel of nutrition and substance that could be achieved by the most magnificent meal for those who are used to plenty (and this comparison is even unfair, as the magnificent meal could be traded to feed that many more hungry people). It is an ethical duty, then, for those of us privileged enough to have plenty to share it with those who do not have enough.
Extending this logic further allows us to answer the question of whether this duty is greater amongst our neighbors, or if there is a global mandate for all mankind. The answer would be very different two...
Shipping food or other resources halfway around the glove would have cost inordinate sums that could have been put to better direct use at the donator's location. In the modern era, however, these barriers are hugely diminished, and money can be sent effortlessly to many organizations with worldwide efforts. The utilitarian maxim does not differentiate between nations; we are now a global community in a way that was only beginning at the time John Stuart Mill was writing, and the greater good must be had by all.
Measuring the good of an act by its effects is the only empirical measure of ethics available, and as such it is the most objective. An ethical system that says the haves do not need to share is inherently biased.
