|Integrity is the whole range of virtues. This implies that if any one virtue is absent, then there is a gap in the integrity.|
Civil society is a construct of a society whose general members altogether have complete integrity. Civility is like the best in defensive driving, meaning that not only is self-interest at play, but so is an interest in the well-being of others---beginning most naturally with one's spouse, children, and extra-family friends.
Civil society (as opposed to anarchic chaos or a caste system) is impossible without both self-interest and other-interest. Since the world is one in which there often is misunderstanding between persons, and between groups, the persons and groups who have the consistent disadvantage on the 'roadways of life' must be compensated for being 'run off the road'. Abuses to one's social generosity should not be what determines how one interacts with others, including taking effort for hope of conveying values which one thinks someone may be missing.
Similarly, despite conflicts of expression between the variety of different persons, material generosity in general acts as a key part in what amounts to a comprehensive societal insurance plan against ending up in some kind of corrupt caste system. Most people in a civil society find nothing admirable in a socially competent person's strict preoccupation with his own preferences. Even a tyrant, who uses military loyalty to commandeer limited resources for his own every personal pleasure-and-power, needs to be appreciated in terms of his personal uniqueness without regard for his bad reputation.
But, the problem with a tyrant is that he is not open so much as to negotiating the needs of others in order to get what he prefers. This means that anyone over whom he has power, and whom he misunderstands in their need or identity (think of the Bourne Identity), is, in effect, very disabled. Empathy is what initially drives acts of charity, but the tyrant feels that such acts are a sign of weakness, a lack of personal ambition. When he sees a random pedestrian subject getting run into by a diver subject (in a road system that has no formal traffic laws), he finds the tragedy unfortunate in terms only of his own position in the power structure:
if he happens to dislike the pedestrian (either as to directly known personhood or as to what impression merely he gets of the pedestrian by how the pedestrian looks), and if he does not know the driver, then he feels vindicated against the pedestrian;
if he happens to like the driver for personal advantage, and if he does not know the pedestrian, then he feels that the pedestrian was simply in the drivers right-of-way;
or, if the driver is a commoner while the pedestrian is an 'important' person, then he surely will punish the driver to an inch of the driver's life;
and otherwise all such misfortunes he simply ignores, even if he claims sole judge-ship over his subjects.