Nope, You cant do a good deed by accident, its still a selfish act, intention is everything.

In my view 'intention' is neither necessary nor sufficient. Prior to specific intention is one's hopefully well-thought-out and identified personal motive: what, at the very least, will be gained by the elements of a ‘giving’ decision and how might these two be related to each other? Though perhaps a possible cause for semantic questioning, when motive and intention are viewed together both become potentially united for different reasons. There appears that there is an assumption ‘selfish’ is only ‘bad’ and ‘selfless’ is only ‘good.’ First, I would ask who is keeping records of ‘good behavior’ nee ‘giving’ vs. ‘not giving.’ Is there some sort of central bureaucracy keeping one's Life Records (as mentioned) or is this really a question of personal judgment used to judge one’s own character? Second, Nature is full of of situations where ‘good effects’ proceed with or without intentions. As Adam Smith pointed out, the baker who bakes your bread intends to profit from the sale rather than just feed you out of his good intentions. Many people view giving as a ‘higher’ altruistic human action, believing most times that they have only done well, behaved well and have no need or desire for reward in return. Many view their own intention of giving in the same manner. More often than not, few people will rationally cognate that giving, in of itself, rewards the giver as much as the one who takes from them ... always! Yet, most of us will speak to 'the feeling' we get when giving freely, but rarely do we deeply understand, let alone accept as normal, the very act of giving is not altruistic at all but in the very best of sense, selfish. In the animal kingdom this may be called ‘equitable cooperation.’ If I peck the bugs off your head, you will peck those off mine. Bad effects frequently result from ‘good intentions.’ Witness if you will, the horrors of twentieth century socialism wherein a huge multiple of deaths created by the Nazi’s were caused by the Communists. Their perceived ‘intention’ was seen by them only as ‘good,’ serving their view of preserving ‘the master race.’ We all know this was horrific and unconscionable. We do not seek bravo’s by giving most times, but it is mythological to think that ‘selfish’ returns are only inappropriate and ‘bad.’ Equally, it is not rational or emotionally intelligent that giving is ‘outside’ of ourselves, regardless of the socialization of this view. We all wish to flourish and seek ways to attain our best potentials, not only for ourselves. ‘Selfishly’ if we as individuals, plus individuals and/or society benefits, we do too! In this manner, we may weigh our own actions. Are these actions of ours ‘really’ inviting advancement to all, enjoying the success of all, helping the truly needy or are we puffed up by the illusion of being ‘more,’ when indeed we are not? Many would rather view ‘giving’ as something outside of normal, humane behavior. But if we are to attain our own sense of deserved humanity, we attain it by the encouragements and rewards we ourselves receive from good, thoughtful actions. In my view, there is nothing wrong with that, the selfish sense of 'giving as getting something of personal value!" And more, I desire to only celebrate those that seek [and give to] their own Life Worth Living, their own successes by understanding ‘Selfishness Is The Highest Form of Cooperation!’