To clear up an apparent contradiction

-
Lately, I seem to be ranting a lot about ethics while many times in many forums I have openly questioned the sanctity of ethics.
Are the two positions contradictory?
Let me try and clarify...

Whenever I find ethics advocated as something ordained by a big boss sitting in heaven, pre-meditated and pre-decided, I oppose it. Whenever the argument of ethics is forwarded on the basis of incomplete information and probabilistic hearsay, I oppose it. Whenever ethics becomes a millstone, taking away my right to doubt or question, I oppose it...

Because, one needs to explore to advance. To know what is right, one needs to know what is wrong. To move ahead in the real sense, one needs to doubt, to question...

Ethics which flows out of logic is the ethics I try to follow. It cannot be summarised by any simplistic parable. It is not static, but constantly evolving according to the situation and becomes logically apparent on a complete understanding of the variables of the circumstance.

And that is why many a times I'm ethically confused, since I don't have enough information or a clear understanding about the circumstance at hand. And that's the reason sometimes I change my position when new information with regards to the circumstance comes to light.