I think I know where you are coming from. I think there's too much abstraction in a lot of popular talk about charity. I think we need to love people as individuals, not "humanity", or "the underprivileged", or whatever. We have to love the person sitting next to us.

There's nothing wrong with giving to charity and all that. It's a good thing. You can help people. The problem is when it becomes a contest. IMO that sort of thing is best done quietly. Giving so much only means you gave so much. It doesn't mean you care more, or that someone who didn't give doesn't care. The real measure is how you think of and treat the people in the same room. Love has to be freely given, it can't be forced.

I'm not familiar with the term EO, but adding "effective" to altruism suggests that altruism isn't any good unless it's "effective". The emphasis seems to reduce a great moral problem (How do I love my neighbor?) into a merely economic one (How do I make a material impact?), which if I'm correct, is why it seems empty to you. It's upside down.

Love in action is real and fulfilling, no matter how much self denial is involved. Self denial purely as an end in itself is just miserable. We all have to do the best we can according to our strength. It's good you are thinking about these things, it speaks well of you.