morally superior

i read this article and the comments and it reminded me of this story from julian baggini - the pig that wants to be eaten.

Schuyler and Tryne both sheltered Jews from the Nazis during the occupation of the Netherlands. they did so, however, for quite difference reasons.
Tryne was a woman whose acts of kindness were purely spontaneous. suffering and need spoke to her heart and she responded without thinking. friends admired her generosity of spirit, but sometimes reminded her that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. "you may feel moved to give money to a beggar," they would say, "but what if he then spends it all on drugs?" Tryne was unmoved by such worries. in the face of human need, all you can do is offer a hand, surely?
Schuyler, in contrast, was known a as a cold woman. the truth was that she didn't really like many people, even though she didn't hate them either. when she helped others, she did so because she had thought about their plight and her duties, and concluded that helping was the right thing to do. she felt no warm glow from her good deeds, only a sense that she had chosen correctly.
who of Schuyler and Tryne lived the more moral life?

it's hard to say, no? in either case, good is being done. but for some reason we rate motive so highly. i volunteer a lot. mostly because i think it's fun, i have the time, someone has to do good so why not me, and i think it's the right thing to do. but does that make me better than someone who only volunteers to get credit somehow: from school or from god? no. it probably doesn't.