Defending the Truth

Are they the same? Completely different? I would say that they have different uses and applications, but that they are outgrowths of the same foundations.

First the question we have to look at is how ethics are defined.
Ethics is from the Greek ethos, which means the way one has oneself, that is, one’s character or the way one is honestly. Individuals need to know clearly how it has one’s self, in accordance with the ethical standards to measure if it is truly has character according to specific rules or standards. Ethicists do not primarily delve into the most basic underlying ethical principles because they then begin to operate at a philosophic level that is parallel to a moral "world." Essentially, the most basic ethical principles are in line with the moral standards held across cultures. Tom Morris, Head of Morris Institute for Human Values and former Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame explains:
"Problems in knowing do not logically imply any lack of reality in what we are trying to come to know. But there is an objective physical universe, however hard it is sometimes to know. The same is true of ethics. Knowing and being are sometimes different. When you look at the deepest practical levels of ethical thought across cultures, you find surprising agreements underneath all the surface differences. There are universal truths concerning human nature…the realities of ethics and morality are there, or rather, here, before we ever start drawing up laws and promulgating rules."
While ethical standards are concerned more with legalistic issues and normally conform to a more practical structure, morals originate from individual cultures, be they in accordance with objective truth or not. Morals is from the Latin mors, meaning the customs in which one is raised and the standards one has acquired through habitual conformity. Moral standards are also related to the actions and relations of individuals within a society, directly tying into the legalistic definition of ethics. The impact of this is that ethical actions and judgments are very much the same as moral actions and judgments. So, morals are concerned with society while ethics are concerned with practical problems and applications. Laws originate from societies and cultures, whether from the general consenus of the populace or from individuals. The individuals creating these laws inevitably act in favor of their particular moral standards, as you have said before. Ethics comes into play both in the establishment of the law and in its practical application. These ethics will necessarily be based in preconceived moral standards that affect both their use and longevity. Furthermore, because the ethical standards of a society are inherently grounded in the said society's moral standards, anyone subscribing to these ethical standards are in accordance with the most general and sweeping moral adherences of the culture.

Thoughts?

Think I agree. Looked up both words in the handy dandy dictionary, and got this:
Ethics
1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. 4.(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.


mor·al
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5.conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man. 6.virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7.of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support. 8.resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty. –noun 9.the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. 10.the embodiment or type of something. 11.morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct

When I think ethical, I generally think of it as being applied to like, rules and such. Like for example, doctors have a set of ethics. With morals I think that those more or less come from inside (as cheesy as this sounds), I'd say most people (with a developed brain) know right from wrong and know if they are being immoral.

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.