The problem with defining an altruistic act as requiring that the one performing the act receive no benefit is that, if acts of altruism cause the person committing the act to feel good and that is deemed to be rewarding to that person, then the only one capable of performing an altruistic act is a complete misanthrope who feels badly for doing a kindly act for someone. That definition is a little too narrow for my liking. The operating definition should include the non-expectation of reward or the foregoing of a reward (or the relinquishing of something) and at least some degree on anonymity. This gets very circumstatial very quickly.
I believe that those who think that altruistic acts are done because of the good feeling they create in the one performing the act are extreme cynics or just looking for an excuse not to act generously.
