Yes, I think so too. I wonder, though, if ethics or morals are better for holding oneself to a stricter standard. Ethics, by nature of being so legalistic, could be a good call here because they are a more clearly defined set of standards than morals. It would be easier for one to understand, accept, and aspire to a set of rules that did not have such great potential and perhaps even capacity for fluctuation and conditional circumstances as moral standards do. However, if ethics are born of morals, it might be better to hold yourself to the most foundational standards there are, the evident reason being that all outgrowths of morality are subsequently changed as a result. Ethical standards are easier to follow and more applicable to whatever practical issue you may have at hand. Of course then you have to weigh the value of this. Is it better to take an easier path that will have faster results that maybe are more on target in the beginning, or better to cultivate self-discipline over a long period of time to affect a wider range of circumstances? It would take much longer and your actions may not be as they should be immediately, suggesting that actions are more likely to be immoral. So, the new question: Does a long-term betterment of self, values, morals, and, by effect, other persons justify/outweigh immoral actions while developing oneself? An interesting side constraint here could be that actions are categorical.