I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."
This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.
I hold all people to a standard that some may call The Human Bean™. This standard accounts for difference in ability, coping skills, and processes, in the same way a standardized school test accounts for difference in intelligence and the like. It ignores them completely, because in the eyes of a standard, none of those things matter. If you can relate to your fellow man, and treat them the way you want to be treated, and assume everyone else is doing the same, then you are a Human Bean™. If you do not, or cannot, then you are not. I am ok with us disagreeing on this point, as I do not see either one of us hurting anyone because of this difference in ideology. I understand and respect what you've said.
As far as moral integrity goes work is filthy. Work as a clerk at a retail store? You are the endpoint, connection to consumer of a process that is extremely environmentally destructive and involves child labor and brutal exploitation of the impoverished in Asia. I can't condemn you for that, the system is set up so that to survive we have to participate in the destruction of people and ecosystems. A few people are innocent in their labor, and it is less than you think, but they can't avoid it in their consumption.
You are fighting a Straw Man.
Why would morality reach beyond a system that is out of your control? Morality is based on choice, so why would something beyond choice be relevant to morality? You are not exploiting children in Asia. Buying the shirts they made is not an equivalent to exploiting those children in Asia or the environment.
