2 million $ to the person you love or 1$ anonymously to 200 million poor?

Here is an ethics thought experiment that explores personal connection in altruism, similar to Peter Singer's thought experiments. Suppose you were given these two choices

• Choice A: You can give any single person you know (other than yourself) 2 million $ openly.
• Choice B: You can give 200 million of the poorest people on the earth 1 $ each, anonymously. 

If one were a sensing and feeling type of person, then the choice would be obviously A. You could give your loved one 2 million dollars and that would be enough to make them financially independent for the rest of their life (assuming they use the money judiciously). You would be interacting with them regularly, you know them well for a long time and will continue seeing them be happy for the rest of your life. This is similar to the ending in The Last of Us.

If one were logical, intuitive and truly selfless then choice B is clearly the better choice. Poor people across the globe would benefit many orders of magnitude more than in choice A. 2$ would be more than a day's earnings for 200 million poor people (poverty line is about 2$ per day). But the problem here is you would not see or feel the effects of this choice. No one would thank you and your loved one might be poor. One would need to have the strongest conviction of one's belief that one is doing the right thing. From the chooser's perspective it is as good as giving up 2 million dollars since they do not see any benefit from this choice. 

This is in some ways the positive counterpart to the quote "The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. A hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!".  People have this tendency of "Out of sight, out of mind" and many are moral only when others are watching. The choice also depends on what you consider is your circle of empathy. If it consists of only you and your loved one, then Choice A is preferred. If all of humanity is in it then clearly choice B is better. This is also related to the phrase "concentrated benefits and dispersed costs", similar to how a corrupt politician or a crony capitalist steals money from the public, they are clearly choosing a worse form of option A. 

Think which one would you choose?