You can stuff the pop psychology, I'm not interested in it as it says nothing about morality.  I could show it's human nature to kill...end of story.  No, morality is governed by both action and intention, not just one or the other at your pleasure.  If what Brody claim was true, "it is not immoral" then no one would be offended or uncomfortable with the ideas and questions I asked.  Ah but things are apparently different.  99% of the donors to charities do not receive any compensation whatsoever and give in return for nothing.  I decided to loose my tongue when I read about using sick kids as a "guerilla" marketing opportunity on page 4 if your interested in the forensics of rants.  Considering the nonstop self promotion, preening, chest puffing and tone deaf corporate ear and history of the source well... let's just say it doesn't take a genious to make a judgement.  Most people I know believe that giving to charity for altruistic reasons is noble and virtuous, but for reasons of self-promotion and profit, or pride and selfishness, to be ignoble and not virtuous.  That is my moral position and I state it with certainty, and "by the same right" as those who state otherwise yet ask, by what right do I?  

P.S. To marketing, my particular view on these issues is not an aberrant blip in your data.  Have Smithers check your premises Mr. Burns.

P.P.S. To anyone who may be confused, yes, my prior posts were lampooning, dark sarcasm, whatever term you prefer.