Some seem to forget that "Etiquette" is not defined in the same way in all cultures. So, the real question is, why we wouldn't be adopting the Anglo-Saxon conception of etiquette. One might be tempted to simply retort "why don't they adopt ours", and that wouldn't be entirely wrong. It is arrogant for those of one culture to assert that the ways of another require defense, while their own ways do not. But, the decision to not follow their customs is not an arbitrary one.
One of the characterisitic traits of that particular cultural tradition, it seems to me, is a refusal to accept that man is flesh and blood, defined by instincts that he can not discard, even if he is foolish enough to wish to do so. Rather, man is imagined to be infinitely malleable, an angel entombed in flesh, rather than an animal imbued with spirit. This leaves one so inclined with the unanswerable question of why it is, that anything matters, then, because if one has so little in the way of a fundamental nature, can one not simply redefine oneself to make the bad things in life, good for oneself?
If so, then what is left to motivate one? To possess absolute free will, in the sense imagined, would leave one drained of passion. To seek it, is to drive life away, and wonder why the depression and sense of pointlessness that follows can not be driven away as well. This is the nightmare of stoicism. One that a prudent man will seek to elude, at each moment, knowing that he can only do so through the acceptance and understanding of his own fundamental nature.
This is not to say that he yields to impulse without resistance. To do so as a matter of habit, is to be a sociopath. Instead, he recognises his nature as a given, neither right nor wrong, which provides him with motives, and it is in how one resolves conflicts of one's own motives with those of another, that justice or injustice, kindness or cruelty, lie. Right conduct is not found by going into denial about one's crueler impulses, but in moderating their expression, out of respect for the importance of the other person's instinctual needs.
An obvious question, calling for an answer :Is that an endorsement of moral relativism?
That much having been said, it is an unavoidable reality of human nature that the goods we desire will conflict, no matter how unhappy we may be about this truth. This should be no source for wonder. The human brain is the product of ages of random mutation, not conscious design - the only test the changes in its design being subjected to, being the need for its possessor to live long enough to reproduce more often than the competition. A perfect design, in which no facet of the instincts of the resulting creature, conflicts with any other, would be an unrealistic thing to hope for. Especially if one believes in gods that hadn't attained full consciousness at the time when our species was evolving.
Or if, as some, one doesn't believe in gods at all. (Of course, given Occam's razor, the burden of proof would lie on the one arguing for the presence of intelligent design in the results of evolution. The numerous design flaws in the human body (like the presence of the appendix) would seem to speak against this view, anyway. The point here, is that the presence of such unavoidable internal conflicts need not pose any sort of spiritual crisis, for us).
Once one accepts this, a sad truth becomes clear. Even the "bad" needs - the ones that we are inclined to see as leading to this conflict - are often real, and inborn, and must be dealt with. To do otherwise, is work evil in a more subtle guise, though, what on the surface, appears to be an attempt to do good. But pain is pain, no matter which direction it comes from, and to leave any need unaddressed, is to bring unneeded suffering into your own life, and thus into the lives of those who feel a bond with one. It is to reinforce the expectation that such actions are to be performed, and thus bring the same unhappiness into the lives of others. And, by thus making it harder for us to pleasantly interact with each other, it weakens those bonds that hold a society together, helping to break that chain of custom mentioned earlier.
One of these aspects of human nature that some would seek to legislate out of existence is the reality of anger. But anger is there, whether one wishes to acknowledge it to oneself, or not. This is so, even when the desires motivating the anger, are not reasonable ones.
Choices, now ...