Homo erectus cared for their sick and elderly.
Neanderthals left flowers in graves.
Wolves and Cape Hunting Dogs are highly social, caring for the young communally and giving food to sick members. And they are animals. I think we can do a bit better than that...
It would seem that whatever quaint theories people have along the lines of "I'm alright Jack, $uck you", actually caring for other humans is a favorable charcteristic for survival. We've been doing it for millions of years, if it hand't been beneficial those with that trait would have probably died out.
It's also easy to make it easy on yourself NOT to care. Anyone who thinks about this knows this situation is NOT about a few thouisand looters, but about hundreds of thousands of displaced people, many of whom have lost nothing. The looters may not do anything for you in return, but the majority of people can't be dismissed by such conscience-salving excuses. Maybe if you actually made a fair comparison your stance would be more defensable?
Obviously there is a difference between one's immediate kin group or community and people thousands of miles away. But the difference is less in an age when modern communications has shrunk the scale of the world so dramatically.
In the modern world we are all closer together than ever before. If we work together and care for each other, the benefits will be greater for the individual than if we try to make ourselves think we are independant of our fellow man. This isn't a theory, it's a scientific fact. Do some research on altruism; there are certain patterns of behaviour that are the most beneficial in a population, and they are ones that ignore one or two instrances of a 'favour' not being returned before stopping giving favours.
The behavioural trait of simply NOT helping others only pays off in the very short term.