A few days ago on my way to work I heard a story on my local NPR affiliate about “selfish” giving. The story asked whether it is just as good to give if you know you’re getting something in return. For example, you buy a (PRODUCT) RED iPod Nano: you end up with a cool new toy and money goes to help fight AIDS in Africa. Does the fact that you are getting something in return diminish the gift itself?

I think so.

The story was thought provoking to me because I recently made a donation to my local public radio station, WKAR. I questioned whether my own motives involved the t-shirt for first-time donors. I would say that in this case, the bonus gift was the final push that made me open up my wallet. I loved the NPR programming so much that I had been planning to donate for a while. Will I donate again next year, even with no “thank you” gifts? Absolutely.

I almost wonder if the fact that donations are tax-deductible adds to the feeling of entitlement when doing “good deeds.” When you get something in return, giving suddenly becomes lots more convenient, and I think this is where it becomes questionable. Altruism is defined as “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others,” and I don’t think a lot of that exists anymore.

I’m not trying to argue that you shouldn’t give anything unless you are going to be completely selfless about it. But I do think we should be honest with ourselves about our motives. Would you still contribute to fighting AIDS in Africa if you didn’t like coffee? If the answer is yes, awesome! Next time, skip the coffee and donate $12 to the cause. That’s $11 more for the charity than if you bought some coffee and let Starbucks make the donation. If the answer is no, that’s okay too.

What do you think? Is it giving to receive okay if the net benefit is positive? Is something better than nothing?