Ethical and Nonethical: Why only two options?

There is a common tendency among people to move everything or to adjust everything (and everyone) towards the mean (or is it the central tendency?). What it means is that people on the superior half do not get appreciated as they should be in an absolute manner and people on the other (inferior) half get unnecessary sympathy.
The point that i m trying to make is in reaction to some of the questions that i have confronted recently. The quality that i m talking about is the morals and ethics being practiced by people.
Qualities/attributes/performance are generally measured in a relative sense, a person's wealth (rich and poor), knowledge ("he is more knowledgeable than me"), class performance (ranks) and so on and so forth. But when it comes to ethics and moral values people generally tend to make judgment in a more absolute sense rather than relatively. Not even Lord Ram was sparred in this regard (yes, i m talking about the "agni-parikhsa" of Maa Sita).
So, why this bias? The answer to me lies in the same old central tendency and even more in the tendency of human beings to "pull" or downplay others' qualities so as to justify one's inability to stick to the right path.
When it has been generally agreed upon that attaining 100% in any measurement is close to impossible (one of my learnings from MBA) then why do we try to impose 100% compliance in ethical behavior. People generally try to find out that one-off incident/instance to totally negate a certain person's otherwise "morally/ethically" commendable behavior. But why this discrete function of ones and zeros, we are humans not machines! Can't we assign a percentage rating to the level of ethical soundness.
[THIS POST NEEDS SERIOUS REVIEW AND I'LL BE BACK WITH A MORE THOROUGH AND ELABORATE POST]

PS: Comment is a scarce commodity here, so every kind of it is welcome :)

I m back!

My google analytics shows that the weekly trend of no. of visitors is on a declining spree recently (after showing strong positive trend for quite some time- although the visitor count never exceeded 9/week). And so it requires some drastic measures to be put in place. So, here I am back to the writing board.
Things have changed way to steeply that even "change" does not aptly explain the happenings. I-banking lost its existence, markets went hay wire, I got 7.8 in IV term [is thr a negative correlation between economic growth and my CG? :)], I lost my wallet, Jumbo and Dada retired, Aby came second for the first time in IIM L and ...
To start off with cricket, the retirement of Dada was really sad and even though it was time for Jumbo, the way he had to bid adieu was unfortunate. The story of these two great contributors was kind of compressed in their final appearances; while Jumbo held onto his final wicket as a C&B with stitched fingers (which speaks of the commitment that this man has showed over and over again), Dada's final test was an equally apt summary of how "Bollywoodish" has been his journey- he missed out on a hundred in the first innings (that 85 will still be remembered as his final reply to critics) and the first ball duck in the second innings which happened around a loud applause from within and outside the ground.
The "Dadagiri" which changed the whole mindset of Indian cricket will forever be remembered as the most crucial mile stone in Indian cricket and had I not witnessed Sachin I would have ranked Dada as the best Indian player ever. And when I say, "best player", I look at the whole package that this man brought to the game. He was instrumental in Indians becoming fearless abroad and more importantly becoming the ones who look straight into the the eyes of the opposition rather being stared at.