Adam Smith the Scottish philosopher wrote about this in Theory of the Moral Sentiments. He said we rescue someone in danger, possibly endangering ourselves, but only because it is the right thing to do. The wellbeing of the person concerned wouldn't interest us at all in other circumstances. So it is not the person's wellbeing we are aiming at directly, but at the right thing to do in the circumstances. Which doesn't make us self serving, or other serving either. Its the principle that is other serving, not really or directly our intentions, although I'm not sure about that.
Hope this isn't becoming complicated?!

Thinkingcat wrote:Quite so. Unpalatable though it may be, everything we do to help others can be explained by a desire to satisfy our own emotional needs (which is not to say that this is necessarily the case - but it is a sufficient explanation). This can be understood on the level whereby we help someone in order to feel self-worth or avoid guilt, and on the evolutionary level whereby feelings of self-worth or guilt have evolved because it helps the group survive if individuals in the group get gratification from helping others.

Simpleliving apologises for being too simplistic, but I think on the contrary he and Cogito et al are being too complex - or at least they need to explain why we should believe their complex explanations when there is a simpler one. Philosophers even up to the time of Adam Smith did not have the benefit of Darwin's evidence or more recent knowledge of genetics and psychology. There is no longer a need to come up with elaborate explanations - except of course the emotional need that some people have to believe they are somehow 'good'!