[christophilus]

I was going to say the same thing, and yet…

Let’s say that you give someone $100 so that they can feed their family. The good feeling you get, and the sense of justice, etc is worth $100 or more to you. Therefore, you got at least $100 utility out of it.

Maybe? That’s what I’m guessing the OP meant.

[_dain_]

You don't do it for a good feeling, you do it so they can feed their family.

[exdsq]

It’s okay if altruism is inherently selfish and for a warm fuzzy feeling or social media points as long as the altruism takes place

[ClumsyPilot]

This comes across as divorced from reality - this is not why most people donate

[Diggsey]

What's the difference between someone who donates because it makes them feel good (to have a positive impact on the world) and someone who does it because they want to have a positive impact on the world?

There isn't one. It's the same thing.

All choices can be traced back to a "selfish" reason. To deny that is to suggest that there is something other than our self that determines if we are a good person or not.

[ClumsyPilot]

What is the difference between someone who lives a trully happy life of luxury and someone who lives in squalor and his happyness is induced through drugs?

There isn't one. Its the same thing.

To deny that is to suggesy that theelre is something other than our self that determined is we had a good life.

[exdsq]

This comes from a lot of reflection on ‘selfish altruism’. You might think it’s divorced from reality but I’ve had to argue for altruism existing far too many times in England to not think about it more. It’s probably the cause of donating far more often than you think, just people rarely admit it.