I think you're wrong here. The article is not about (1) and (2). Consider (4) (because (3) is taken by another comment):
4th person: These people are starving. I could help them by doing as much as I can afford. Hovewer, most people seem to unconsciously subscribe to CIE, and they will see that as too little help, therefore I'll become an object of hate in the media. It may ruin my business. I'll be pointed at on the street as a bad person. Therefore, I shall ignore the starving people. We have all those social programs that help them, I pay taxes, so it's all cool, right?
I was gonna be sarcastic, but I'll just say it out: this (4) thing, the image of the supposedly do-gooder who is dettered by people subscribing to CIE, is not realistic at all.
If people's thought process was as you portray it, people wouldn't get involved at all or very few would. But the fact that we have so many businesses merely paying these people as LESS as they can (2), proves that the concern of (4) is doesn't exist, or, at least, doesn't deter them.
They do go into business in those areas and they do pay as little as they can get away with -- people's criticism and "hate in the media" be damned.
Besides, if the people portrayed in (4) REALLY wanted to "help them by doing as much as they could afford", then they would be (1).
4th person: These people are starving. I could help them by doing as much as I can afford. Hovewer, most people seem to unconsciously subscribe to CIE, and they will see that as too little help, therefore I'll become an object of hate in the media. It may ruin my business. I'll be pointed at on the street as a bad person. Therefore, I shall ignore the starving people. We have all those social programs that help them, I pay taxes, so it's all cool, right?