morality as a secondary question for Christianity??

i'm always saying that discussions on moral issues are secondary compared with the primary discussion on/action toward meeting basic human needs. of course, i would typically rework this statement and affirm the importance of morality, but not as the primary question Christians must invest in. it's interesting, then, that i have of late been so engrossed and moved by a text called 'sins of omission: a primer on moral indifference' by s. dennis ford, an ethicist. somehow, ford has managed to synthesize the discussions of ethics/morality with that ofsocial responsibility (discussions typically found on opposing ends of the political spectrum, might i add). it's beautiful. absolutely beautiful. an excerpt from the final chapter:

Concerning the phenomenon of moral indifference, ...ethicists face a rhetorical problem. Persons are indifferent, in part, because moral questions are asked or presented in the wrong way. Persons are indifferent because they are not persuaded that the questions addressed to them by ethicists are genuinely [pressing]. The failure of ethics in America is a failure of moral practice, but it is also a failure in the rhetorical strategy of ethicists. Overcoming indifference requries a rhetorical strategy for convincing people that moral options are indeed genuine. //Consider for the moment the currently popular phrase 'option for the poor.' At first glance, how genuine is that option for the middle class? ...Is the voluntary abandonment of the middle class's privileged position a real possibility on which people are willing to act? How many people can actually or realistically consider sacrificing the education or nuturion of their own children in order to support the children of the homeless? ...//Overcoming indifference toward the option for the poor requires persuading people that the question is a genuine option. Voluntarily accepting a lower standard of living for myself and my children may be beyond the realm of what I would be willing to do, but I may nevertheless be challenged by other options on which I would be willing to act. I may not be willing to reduce my standard of living, but I may be convinced to work one night a week in a family shelter. ...If I can be persuaded that my fate and the fate of the poor are connected, then I will finally have to realize that if I am not part of the solution then I am part of the problem.

and now for the punchline:

...Why are people uninterested? In contrast to those who would presume an interested audience, the ethicists...begins with a moral apologetic (118-120).

yes, instead of beginning with a disclaimer on why morality is important, those arguing for the importance of social responsibility would do well to assume the 'interested audience' and in so doing draw out of each listener the genuine interest and warmheartedness that already exists (though i may have been chilled by a variety of factors...factors which must be dealt with using hte utmost care and concern). ...i've been described as persuasive, and this is certainly the key to any persuasive success i may claim...reaching through the layers of rotting stench and protective insulation to the core of the heart where goodness can often be discovered. it is then that people are actually willing to change their lifestyles for the sake of a principle which may or may not bring them immediate gratification.