There are charities out there that care for blind cats, while actual humans are starving.

I don't know what is the average utility of a blind cat's life, but if it happens to be negative... I may have an elegant utilitarian solution for both of these problems.

Paul is talking about his own donation choices, or perhaps those of a rational altruist in general, rather than those of a typical altruist.

It's there a universal reason why starving humans are more worthy than blind cats?

EDIT: I'm guessing that the downvoters glossed over the qualifier "universal". Clearly, some people have terminal values which favor cats over humans. The grandparent comment used the term "good" in some apparently absolute sense, hence my question.