Ethics

It seems as though the main point of this article was to show how circumstances change whether people people act morally or not. I feel as though most people would like to act helpful in situations but it difficult and therefore not worth their time and effort. Like when you pass a beggar on the street, its not as though you don't want to help them, maybe you are in a rush or you don't have cash, it becomes inconvenient to help them.
But I feel as though the question must be addressed, is it possible to do a good deed just for the good of it?As in every time you help someone out you get a certain rush, it comes with self satisfaction. When you do give the beggar money, is it possible that you did it because you can look at yourself as a better person? Or to look better in front the rest of the people that saw you give money? Maybe you will now see yourself as a better person than those that did not give money. I just feel that no good deed comes without some sort of selfish motivation.
Although I also see aspects of ethics such as cheating less destructive than are portrayed. My high school had a culture of cheating, most people could not keep up with the workload if it wasn't for cheating. Even though it was one of the top 100 high schools in the country, the students were no more "ethical" than anywhere else. People were so concerned with their GPA's they would do anything to keep them high. Many people I know go to ivy league schools would stay home on test days giving themselves more study time or copy most of their homework. It's not that any one of us were not smart enough to do the work individually, but our extra-curricular activities combined with many of us working 30 hour work weeks, there were not enough hours in the day to accomplish it all without cheating. Few of our classes were graded on a curve, so this cheating only affected whether we did well or not. Though our ethics may be compromised it was worth it at the time, or so it seemed.