I focus on your item 2 and quote what Michael Porter and Mark Kramer share on a Harward Business Review Release of 2002 on CSR (and CARE):

“Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy – When it comes to philanthropy, executives increasingly see themselves as caught between critics demanding ever higher levels of “corporate social responsibility” and investors applying pressure to maximize short-term profits. Increasingly, philanthropy is used as a form of public relations or advertising, promoting a company’s image through high-profile sponsorships. But there is a more truly strategic way to think about philanthropy. Corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context–the quality of the business environment in the locations where they operate. Using philanthropy to enhance competitive context aligns social and economic goals and improves a company’s long-term business prospects. Addressing context enables a company not only to give money but also leverage its capabilities and relationships in support of charitable causes. Taking this new direction requires fundamental changes in the way companies approach their contribution programs. Adopting a context-focused approach requires a far more disciplined approach than is prevalent today. But it can make a company’s philanthropic activities far more effective.”

To me, this quotation still sounds ambiguous, as there is still the condition of the competitive advantage. A true gift is free of a hidden or less hidden agenda.

If leaders find an attitude to commit their activities to humanity through business and money making, I will not see a conflict. What happens today is, that many leaders use live, intelligence and action for the sake of mere profit maximisation instead of using money and action and intelligence to enhance their own live and the live of others.

Two thoughts came to my mind spontaneously.

1) With regard to the theoretical (and at the same time maybe not so theoretical) example of the rescue of six people in the cave: the worst thing the rescue team could do is wasting time by short-listing people based on their CVs, consequently risking the death of the whole group. Thus, I cannot agree with the alleged Buddhist teaching not to act at all. I fully subscribe to your Edmund Burke quote.

2) I still wonder if “business” and “care” have to be in conflict. The question for me is what is the purpose of a business. If the ultimate objective is making money, I might just pretend to care for the people and abuse them in order to make more money. If I genuinely care for people, and the objective of my business is to make people’s lives better and to contribute to society, then I will be willing to sacrifice (short-term!) profit maximization.
Personally, I am convinced that in the long run only the latter approach will be sustainable. But this is just another opinion…

Diversity exists. QED.