It's a false comparison in my opinion, but I do get your idea. With your scenario, there are two elements to consider: 1. Bystander Effect, i.e., someone else

It's a false comparison in my opinion, but I do get your idea. With your scenario, there are two elements to consider: 1. Bystander Effect, i.e., someone else can help in this situation so I don't have to 2. People likely reason that Guineans still have some agency to try to subsist, so the threat is not as immediate Compared to the Trolley problem proposed, there is a decision to be made _now_ that only you have control over and there will be an immediate effect in that people's lives will be saved in a situation where they have no option to help themselves or even get by at a bare minimum. Ignoring the "I'm absolutely broke so who cares?" people (which while a fair point I think isn't quite the spirit of the scenario, which is will you sacrifice items of significance to you for the lives of others), I think that your scenario has too much distance and layers of abstraction as to how the money helps. Fundamentally, if we can't actually understand specifically what the charities do to save a life in Guinea, so it's harder for people to accept that the decision has any significant impact. So I don't see any real inconsistency between your scenario and the trolley one. People aren't as accepting of the premise that the charitable donation immediately saves a life and count on the help of others whereas pulling the lever immediately has an observable effect.