Moral "Bar"

On Friday I brought up that Houchin does not agree with the idea that "[J.O. Urmson] sets the basic level of duty for everyone at the same level" (24). I support Urmson's idea. When I brought this up in class it was quickly put to rest simply because of the fact that some people are more able to help than others. While I acknowledge this, I do not think that that is sufficient reasoning to dismiss the idea. At this time, at least in the U.S., we are all born with equal rights. Why then should we all be held to different moral standards? And who determines those standards? I am not talking about how much people give to charity or how much time they spend at soup kitchens because, while that is altruistic, you don't need to constantly act like that to become altruistic. I am talking about morals in regards of respect and manors; how you treat people. Houchin's disagreement with this idea, I think, leaves too much room for excuses. If there is not a set standard then who does set the standards? Each individual person. Then, they could act as despicably as they want and say "O I'm so sorry, I'm just not capable of acting as nice as you!" and we would have to accept that. I think that this attitude has spread to many aspects of education as well, and not necessarily for the best. Many times, credit is given for effort. Work is not necessarily reviewed and graded, just acknowledged as being done to the best of one's ability. What happens, then, when we graduate high school and maybe graduate college and get into the work force? "O sorry boss, I really tried to get that work done but I was just so tired, I'll get it done eventually" Now you're out of that job, looking for another one. I just think that we all need to be set to a standard every now and then. Self awareness and responsibility is good and important, but I think that sometimes we all need some guide lines.