We have argued in this paper that selfish motivations are only one component of decisionsrelated to charitable behavior. People also value warm?glow feelings and have genuine otherregardingpreferences, such as concerns about how resources are distributed and strongreciprocity. Such other?regarding preferences are not blind, however, and are insteadconstrained by a variety of criteria related to the deservedness of the potential recipient.These constraints are not related to material compensation but are rather, in an importantsense, moral considerations.The Moll et al. (2006) and Harbaugh et al. (2007) studies are merely a taste of what is tocome from the neuroeconomic approach. These two studies demonstrated that it is possibleto identify neuroanatomical regions uniquely activated during conditions of selfishness, purealtruism,and warm?glow. The data at present do not conclusively resolve the psychologicalegoism versus altruism debate by any means, but this work is promising. Dissecting the brain,as we might to see if a bacterium has an oxygen detector or magnetosome, is not as farfetchedas it once seemed. For example, the evidence that reward areas of the brain areactivated by merely witnessing a charitable act is compelling evidence that humans do, in fact,donate for other?regarding reasons, contrary to the egoism hypothesis. To appreciate theunique force of these data, consider someone who claims to enjoy the fact that another groupis benefitted by charity as an end in itself. An advocate of egoism could dismiss this claim asdisingenuous; perhaps the person merely says such things to earn the approval of theexperimenter, or is somehow deluding him or herself. But to also dismiss the neuroimagingdata, the critic would have to argue that the subject is somehow capable of self?generatingstriatal activity despite not actually experiencing a reward, or perhaps postulate a source ofstriatal activation other than reward. There might be such explanations, but this is a hardercase to make, and now the burden of proof would lie with the proponent of egoism.