Morals Vs. Ethics

So I am actually going to throw out some of the standard definitions of these two terms, and by throw out I mean get rid of. I am doing that because it seems that even the "official" definitions of these are vague, interchangeable, and tend to be contradictory. For example from thefreedictionary.com:

eth·ic (thk)
n.
1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct

You see a little vague, a little interchangeable. The main difference you can see is that ethics appears to be about studying morality, but both morality and ethics are about rules of "right conduct", "right and wrong," and both terms can be used when discussing the formation of a "moral code."

Many interpret ethics as the abstract version, like the umbrella under which morality is only a part. So when discussing what a moral code should accomplish or what it should be for we turn to ethics. Or if we wish to study and compare different moral codes. The problem is ethical code and moral code are too often used interchangeably. It seems to be that people adopt one term or the other based upon which word they are more comfortable with. Are you an Ethical person or a Moral person?

I think the abstract category of ethics as a part of philosophy still has its place but I would like to utilize a more concrete variety of the term. So when I am using the term ethics in this discussion I am mainly using it to talk about personal ethics and a personal ethical code. Yes "ethics" is still a branch of philosophy under which morality could fit but I am not meaning to discuss the broader meaning and usage right here.

I see morals as being derived from the term "mores." As in social mores...

From wikipedia.com:

Mores (English pronunciation: /ˈmɔəreɪz/ or /ˈmɔəriːz/, singular mos) is the Latin term for societal norms, customs, virtues or values. Mores derive from the established practices of a society rather than its written laws. They consist of shared understandings about the kinds of behavior likely to evoke approval, disapproval, toleration or sanction, within particular contexts.

It seems "morality" is almost always used in the context of mores even when not intended. When people assume someone is immoral because they are atheist they often explain this by saying that morals necessarily come from God. However we function within a society in which most rules of conduct particularly the ones we describe as "ethics" clearly do not come from religious belief. How we behave in certain company, what ethical standards we practice in any given profession, our rules of decorum in certain environments (courthouses, libraries, classrooms etc.) have little to do with a belief in God.

So we go through most of our days regularly interacting in environments with specific rules of right and wrong conduct without any reference to deity or religion. So why would a person with a strong religious belief in God almost universally assume that an atheist is immoral, unless they are instead reacting to what they perceive as a deep societal norm -specifically the belief in God? If morality is more about societal beliefs, practices, and expectations then it makes sense to see someone who does not fit the mold as "immoral." I am not saying that the person is immoral or necessarily bad or evil just that it would make sense for those whose moral code comes more from social expectations and customs to see it that way.

The perceived "immorality" does not come from a violation of a code of conduct or the lack of a code of conduct but from violating a more, in this case the belief in a theistic god.

The same could be applied in a nonreligious context: when we are offended by someone who drives recklessly or is noisy in the library. "Rude and inconsiderate" become the equivalent labels of the more religiously charged term "immoral."

I am saying all this not to agree or disagree with the common usage of the term but to make an argument for the idea that "morality," while certainly not the same thing as "mores," has a social component, and most of us do in fact treat it that way. Which is why for my derivation of ethics I am categorizing qualities that I think should fall under personal code of conduct under "ethics" and those that necessitate a social context under "morality."

Consider it as societal virtues/vices vs individual virtues/vices. I will not be discussing the use of force and fraud in so far as it pertains to crime.

Example: Honor, Duty, Loyalty = Moral virtues.

Productivity, Integrity, Honesty (particularly with one's self) = personal ethical virtues.

Ethos (pronounced /ˈiːθɒs/) (ἦθος, ἔθος, plurals: ethe (ἤθη), ethea (ἤθεα)) is a Greek word originally meaning "accustomed place" (as in ἤθεα ἵππων "the habitat of horses", Iliad 6.511), "custom, habit", equivalent to Latin mores.
Ethos forms the root of ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "moral, showing moral character". To the Greeks ancient and modern, the meaning is simply "the state of being", the inner source, the soul, the mind, and the original essence, that shapes and forms a person or animal[1]. Late Latin borrowed it as ethicus, the feminine of which (ethica, for ἠθική φιλοσοφία "moral philosophy") is the origin of the modern English word ethics.

So now we see the real difference... one term is Greek and the other one is Latin!

I am using ethics to refer to personal codes of conduct because the term "ethos" does seem to speak to a person's nature on a deep level. I believe that personal ethics have to evolve based upon the person and situation. I am not meaning to say that they are relativistic or subjective just that they are necessarily contextual.

One action that may be destructive for me may not be destructive for you. An action that may prove to strengthen your character and your well being and thus be virtuous in a personal sense could be a destructive action to someone else.

The objectivity comes more in the values that one is endeavoring to preserve or create with their ethical code. For example if the ultimate value is one's own life, then drinking wine to the point of death could be seen almost universally as an act of vice. However whether the consumption of 5 glasses of wine is a vice depends on the individual person and the ultimate effect the act has on their life.