There's a potential problem that gets touched on sometimes in philosophy but rarely explored. Most people believe that it's morally good to make sacrifices for others. But what if two people both take that to an extreme? Say they're starving and both have a small piece of bread. They would both try to get the other to eat both, and thus would not be willing to eat either piece themselves. The result is catastrophe: they both starve because they were too kind. But is that really how kindness works at high levels?
I present the following claim: you should not try to put others above yourself, only equalize them. That is, if you have two pieces of bread and they have none, you should (assuming you're both equally hungry) give them one but eat the other yourself. The reason is the moral axiom of Fairness: helping someone puts them in debt to you, and if they're already more fortunate than you then that can outweigh the value of "Compassion" (when someone else is less fortunate than you Compassion gets extra value with which to far outweigh Fairness from the principle that you should prioritize those most in need.) (of course, lots of other things are relevant like the efficiency of the gift and the future value of the relationship you're building and possibly your own moral Agency. This is an oversimplified example.) This way, there's no conflict. No catastrophic result if two people are both extremely kind. (Of course we're assuming that splitting the bread doesn't result in both of you starving - in that case probably a moral conflict would ensue.)
This also means that if you are ever the beggar that someone is trying to donate to, you should accept the money, even if you are a saint. But that's not the selfless thing to do! Come on, give other people the chance to be kind too (Agency possibly relevant).