Altruism? Is it Right?

There's a general question that I think Calvinists like to ignore when I talk about altruism. I'm very thankful that Herald asked this question concerning non-believers doing "good deeds" on the PuritanBoard. Here is what he asks,

Is unregenerate man capable of good? Romans 3:10-18 As it is written "There is none righteous not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside together they have become useless; There is none who does good There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave With their tongues they keep deceiving, The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." The above passage is often used in defending total depravity, and justly so. Still, is it accurate to say that the unregenerate man is incapable of good works? Notice that I did not ask it is possible for the unregenerate man to please God. That is a categorical difference.  There are certain things that we can classify as good works.  Looking after the welfare of widows and orphans (James 1:27)] Caring for the poor (James 2:15,16) Being a good neighbor (John 13:34) Those are just a few good works. As I read about good works in the bible, I notice that the works themselves are good; virtuous. That doesn't mean an unregenerate sinner is acceptable to God, and no work that the sinner does is done from a heart that is capable of pleasing God. Still, the works themselves are good. So, in a sense the sinner can perform good works.  Thoughts?

Here's what I wrote in response,

I think it's safe to say that they are capable of some good. I think that Christians who tend to swing the pendulum and say that man is totally corrupt—which is not the historical development of the Canons of Dort on reprobation—do mankind a disservice. Calvin himself saw a place for Seneca in his writing. Although his work on Seneca was one of his earliest works, he still gave some credence to Seneca's doctrine of clemency. (For further reading, the inquisitive reader might want to pick up Charles Partee's book, Calvin and Classical Philosophy.) Am I saying that the writings of non-believers are commensurate to "good works?" Yes and no. Both intellectual pursuits and practical concerns for the Christian fall under ethics (cf. Acts 17:29; Col. 2:8,13; Eph 2:3). I think it's safe to say that developments of "doing justice" can be both practical and intellectual, and these decisions ultimately have ethical implications. I still question, however, whether or not the attitude in which any altruistic endeavor takes place is innocuous. Practically we give individuals and their efforts approbation because it serves the benefit of mankind, but it lacks what the Heidelberg Catechism calls "any good" (Question 8). I'm just really precarious about Calvinists who want to efface God's image from man completely and say that man cannot do any good. I don't believe that's the historical Reformed approach. I like the way Francis Schaeffer puts it in his works: It's like looking at a piece of art. We know there's something there, albeit obfuscated or nebulous.