Certainly, what you say is true as to judging any individual. But the fact that people in Massachusetts, for generations, looked up to the Adams family, was constructive--even though we may disagree with the opinions of some of the Adams family. Similarly, Virginians honored the Lees--what wonderful role models;--and in many a small Midwestern town, around 1900, we had local families, striving to maintain the standards of those who won their position, who exercised a constructive role in setting standards to which others could benefit by emulation.
The bottom line is that virtually no where in the more sentient varieties of life in nature, do you actually have "social equality." It is a fantasy sought by those who have a problem accepting how very different are the individuals in any sentient species. The goal, in all things, should be to excel; to be the best one can be. Equality is a poor, pathetic substitute for a real goal.
William Flax
I fail to see what advantage is gained by honoring families rather than individuals.
It’s an utterly losing cause, anyway. As Tocqueville noted in detail 175 years ago, family reputation over generations is not sustainable without governmentally or socially supported differential status. Since our Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility, I guess we’ll all just have to get along without them.
Why should I despise an honorable man from a poor, or even perhaps criminal family? Why should I honor a pervert or thug from a family that produced good men in the past?