The Conflict

Isnt there a difference between being ethical and conventional?
Conventionality is adhering to some norms that has been around for sometime, without really understanding why you do something, and most often without even caring to bother why you are supposed to act and behave in one particular way. Its about going with the flow.., merging into a whole body called society.. and as far as I can understand, conventionality is just a medium towards acceptability and general approbation. Its just a way of not being conspicuous.
Ethics is about the person that you are or the person you want to be. Its about principles that defines the substance of ur being.. ur character.
I believe in ethics. I am a moralist and I am proud to be so. I have my religious views and my faith instills in me a strict sense of morality.. an understanding of right and wrong. From my childhood, I tried to question conventions and even posed questions about my faith to my mother.. and especially where my faith was concerned, if I had a question, somehow the questions were answered in a way that appealed to my sense, my rational, my heart. So the point is, I try not to swallow conventions.. I try not to live blindly. I think and I question.. and I keep asking till I am satisfied by the answer. If there are no answers, then I think that a particular convention is in place for no specific reason..
I desire to be a principled person.... because it is a matter of substance. I desire to be kind, honest, sincere, dedicated, dependable, and so on and so forth.. These qualities tell me what I value in a person or how I evaluate a person. It also tells me where I aim to be, as a person.
The positive side of conventionality, is that it provides you a way to gel in with the crowd.. and to avoid behaving in a way which makes u or people around you uncomfortable.
But, we shouldnt be so determined to stick on to conventional behaviour, so as to undermine the purpose of ones behaviour and give more weightage to approbation of the general society.

Lets take a hypothetical situation. A bachelor wishes to adopt a child.. say a boy. He goes ahead with all the formalities (I have no idea what the legal possibilities for this are.. its just hypothetical example) and adopts a son.. to take care of in a regular way.. From the moral point of view, there is nothing wrong with it. But from the conventional point of view, this could be a problem. There could be a zillion spiced up speculations in the neighbourhood, as to the "real story behind the scene"; scope for very imaginative gossips; a matter of discussion for all.. a general hullaboo to be enjoyed and celebrated by the whole of the neighborhood.. Before the guy realizes it, probably his character is finished. Why? Simply because he chose to think differently and act differently from the way majority of people think and act, he could end up getting crucified. (I am not advocating adoption by single parents.. I understand that especially in today's scenario, there could be a lot of misuse).

The point is.. while living in society and while sticking onto convnetionalities... its not enough to think good and act good. You have to nail it down your neighbour's throat that you are an extremely good individual.

I appreciate the "If i act in such a way, what will he or she feel? Will my actions hurt the person?" thinking. To an extent, I understand the "If I act in this way, what will they think about me?!!!".. To an extent, it is human and inevitable and also maybe even necessary.
But this thinking shouldn't become so prominent so as to make people paranoid.. and prompt them to behave simply for the convenience of other people, and to seek general approbation.

My grandmother had 4 daughters and no sons. During her times, people did not appreciate women going to shops and buying things... They appreciated women and girls who had no sound, no opinions.. who just ran the house smartly and made things comfortable for the men-folk and made no trouble at all.. My grandmother had no sons.. so she assigned tasks to her daughters including grocery shopping.. when these girls went to the grocer and bought things and came back with the change and accounted for every single anna they spent. Grandmother didnt stick to the conventions of the times.. She delegated tasks among her daughters.. encouraged them to study. She made her daughters capable and fit to be independent.. She was not a feminist... but she was just a woman who had a vision about what she wanted her children to be. She laid emphasis on their education to the point of being dictatively ambitious.., where-in she almost charted my mother's career for her.. She gave all support for their education to the point of their graduation. She brought them face to face with the real world.. My mother and aunts can tell the difference between the wood from a mango tree and the one from jackfruit tree..; they are familar with the different medical drugs and steroids and stuff used in medicines..; they have ideas about the parameters used to built house like the exact distance two beams to support the roof and so on.. All this thanks to a woman, who chose to think above conventions. Who was ready to bring her children up in the way that she thought best, and who risked disapproval of her peers..

Where an unprincipled person is concerned, he has no or very relaxed ethics. So if he sticks to conventions, he is just being superficial.. but atleast a conventional unprincipled person makes it easier for his neighbours and friends to pretend and accept him superficially... An unprincipled man can never have true friends, or is never truly trusted and relied upon..
Where a principled individual is concerned, whenever there is a conflict between his ethics and the set norms or conventions of a society, the ethics form the weighty part of the argument. And though, such a person could loose out on general approbation, he will never loose out on the trust, regard, respect of his friends or family, or whosoever who knows him in real.