People assume others are more self-interested than they really are, a belief that sometimes reduces one’s own prosociality. We assessed whether this is reflected in people’s own vs. others’ circles of moral concern for the world, and if potential discrepancies predict prosociality towards external targets. In an MTurk study (N=186) participants completed the Moral Expansiveness Scale (MES; Crimston et al., 2016) from three perspectives – self, others, others for self. Participants’ moral circles were more inclusive than the ones they reported for others, and participants’ own moral circles were also more inclusive than what they thought others would predict for them. Interestingly, this discrepancy was significant only for distant entities (e.g. plants & animals), but not close entities (e.g. friends & family). An interaction revealed that among high MES participants, compassion for presented homeless targets was higher when others’ MES was thought to be less inclusive, and this was particularly true when the MES was specific to stigmatized entities. The results suggest that those who are more morally inclusive may have a sense of duty to act when they assume that others won’t.