If society wishes to place greater emphasis on charity, philanthropy, or any such altruistic pursuit, it must have in place a means of garnering aid from those who would otherwise be disinclined to support the cause. In some cases, a strong moral code is the mechanism through which donations are given and service is rendered. However, more often than not, some manner of incentive brings the most support.

Proponents of true altruism, giving for the sake of doing the right thing, contend that the implications of donating only when there is a reward involved are deeply concerning, and portend the crumbling moral fabric of society. Supporters of incentivizing charitable donations refute that point, arguing that the good brought about by offering rewards outweighs its moral repercussions. While offering incentives greatly increases the utility of any charitable undertaking, conditioning a society to contribute to good causes only when there’s a reward involved comes with dangers as well.

Charities, donation centers, and aid groups alike have all found that offering donors a good or service in return for their contributions greatly increases the amount of support they receive. At Goodwill for instance, people who donate clothing or furniture receive a slip that enables them to exempt part of their taxes. The prospect of saving a bit of money here and there can be a sufficient motivator for an individual to take the time and clean out the closet and basement and donate accordingly.

Without the added bonus, though, it is less likely that as many people would put forth the time and effort to gather unused items, drive out, and drop them off just out of the goodness of their hearts. Though in a perfect world, charity would be given selflessly and in sufficient amounts, the reality is that most people cannot be bothered to contribute simply because it’s the right thing to do. Since the end goal is to benefit those who stand in need of donations, proponents of incentives submit that offering deductions is a sure way to increase the help provided to the less fortunate. Though the motives may be questionable in the best of circumstances, at least demand for aid is more likely to be met.

However, opponents to incentives worry that reinforcing the ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset could lead to greater problems in more dire circumstances. Of course, when incentives are available, people will be more inclined to contribute to charities and aid groups. But the problem is that such incentives have created an underlying attitude of wanting something in return. Donors come to expect receiving some manner of restitution for the service they render. Then when a need arises for which an incentive cannot be offered, these same people may be less likely to offer support. And those are likely to be the cases in which the need is most dire.

For example, in the case of a natural disaster, there will be no readily available incentive to help the relief effort. If a catastrophe strikes a region, there is little time to set up a process for taking donations and offering incentives. In those cases aid is needed quickly, in large amounts, and more likely than not, with no incentives attached. So there is concern that having solidified an attitude of helping oneself rather than helping others could spell less help during trying times in the future.

Although the assurance of acquiring something in return for acts of kindness — whether it be tax breaks, monetary compensation, or other commodities — can exponentially increase one’s willingness to participate in such deeds of generosity, the moral importance of the act itself should not be overlooked. Incentives should not be done away with, since they maximize benefits for both parties involved in the transaction. Nevertheless, society must prevent the value of charity from being defiled; there needs be a balance between the effect incentives have on one’s propensity for charitable acts and the actual motives behind them.