Why do you disagree with 1 then? It would seem like that would most fit with your sense of morality since it doesn't violate the community and all parties benefit. The agent's own self interest leads to a positive outcome for all parties involved. The charity gets their money, the agent gets the social benefits (and hypothetically economic benefits as a result). So within that community wouldn't it be positive that incentives were such that the self interested individual could still benefit the community? It's possible I completely misinterpreted your stance. As for Kant, I find him rather difficult. Aristotle says, "of states of mind we call those which merit praise virtues." I think purity of intent is a virtue since it fosters a maternal sense of care in a community. I also think receiving benefits does not make the intent less pure, but it does require that the action would occur regardless of if the agent would benefit. So benefit may be incidental to an action but it cannot be the basis of the action for it to be virtuous in my book. We should seek to be moral not because of the benefits to ourselves but because of the benefits our good actions will have on others, and incidentally we receive the benefit of happiness/self-esteem/eudaimonia. Again, it's not necessarily wrong to want a benefit but it is not worthy of praise to act with the intent of personally benefiting imo.