but it's not the same at all. It's sort of a martyr's position. Without taking yourself into consideration. Helping or contributing for the pure joy of it, indicates self and may well be in the best interests of a person. But there are many instances where "without regard to compensation or personal recompense" is self destructive. For instance, a parent who spends so much time volunteering they aren't spending quality time with family. No choice should be a true sacrifice. In this philosophical realm, I think it's important to point out the self-destructive nature of such commitments or actions.

So it makes you feel good to donate?

So why do you donate?

"It may be an emotional feeling or the hope that the good will would benefit them in some way."
These are powerful reasons. The emotional feeling for some people is pleasant. Also if you help people, they feel comfortable with you and help you. If you really break it down, maybe at the core the goal is to get more business. I'm not sure. But if people like to do it, they should.

I also think about helping people we know through UU "church". If you help a stranger who's struggling, maybe he'll learn more about humanism, critical thinking, and the stories that inform our culture. Maybe he'll be more stable and productive, which helps everyone. This is so powerful that I believe in getting the gov't involved in this in a small way, something I know most objectivists reject.

There's also an attitude change inside myself if I'm helping other people, not always for immediate payment, that somehow leads to more paying clients.

This is completely different in my mind from saying "I'm forgoing for other. So should you. You should not have cool electronic toys while others suffer?" That is a corrosive attitude that leads to no new toys, services, products, etc for everyone.

You're being totally rational. Stick with that. :)

Can someone explain this to me. I think I understand being kind and if someone is in an accident or has a major illness doing something for them but I do not really understand this giving back or doing something for someone you don't even know. Seems to me the only reason someone would do something for someone they don't even know is if there was something in it for them. It may be an emotional feeling or the hope that the good will would benefit them in some way. It just seems to me that for any other reason is so unnatural. Just looking for others thoughts.

altruistic:
“having or showing a concern for the welfare of others”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus...

benevolent:
#2 “having or showing a concern for the welfare of others ”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus...

When looking up the words this way, it appears A is B

And THAT'S why selfishness is a virtue! :)

the "unselfish" part is key. Lack of self. Note the 2nd definition of Altruism. Also note way below that the philosophical definition as the opposite of egoism. This is the definition for philosophical purposes. It is not tortured. You just do not want to take the definition to the most logical conclusion. Benevolence:
1 disposition to do good
a : an act of kindness
b : a generous gift

None of these definitions necessarily contradicts selfishness. However, if you read further, you will see examples that tend toward altruism in effect. Whenever one "gives" not in their rational self interest, that is altruism. Lacking in ego, gift by emotions only and no recognition of self's needs. It is pretty clear-cut.