Ethic and Morals

What is the difference between ethics and morals? I have always viewed them as nearly synonymous, the main difference being morals are how I ought to value myself, whereas ethics are how I ought to value others. This is a difference I have created through my own personal understanding, and I admit that it may be a complete misconception. I view the world from a more scientific standpoint, and so I do not necessarily agree that what is written in law is necessarily ethical, just as how I do not necessarily believe that what is written in holy books is moral. To gain a sense of my own standing in the world, I objectively view my own desires and potential with that around me, from which I gain the aforementioned view of what is ethical versus what is moral. Even though the two are deeply linked, I find a need to make a distinction between the two when viewing data for myself, while still respecting that I may be wrong, either through definition or colloquial use of the terms.

What is the diving line between morals and ethics, or are they the same approach to the common question: What ought I/we do?

Response: "What time period in history did humans embrace their true nature the most?" - Jenny

I believe humans embraced their true nature the most back when we were cavemen. Sure, humans show signs of listening to their instincts and providing for their basic needs all the time, but it does not necessarily show that we adhere to them at the same level we always have. Certainly our anger, lust, and greed have improved, at least somewhat, when compared to our more "primitive" selves. We use the word "primitive" to make that distinction between what we used to generally be like, and what we are generally like now. So, if it is commonly accepted that 10,000 years ago, our species was different in that it served out it basic functions more clearly and directly to the point where it would earn the title "primitive", wouldn't that show the Human Nature, which is the collection of properties generally associated with humans, has changed in some way?

Has Human Nature changed from "primitive" to "civilized" in the last 10,000 years or so, or is it just a veil over how instinctual and self-driven we really are?

Understanding Human Nature

In class, I've been having a recurring thought: Can humans even fully understand their own nature? Is it possible for us to fully comprehend the ways in which we act? Given the common assumption that we know very little about the true nature of the universe, as well as how little of that we can even begin to learn about during our lives, I feel that humans are not at a level where they can both understand their nature and somehow not deviate from it, whether through chance or purposeful action. Of course, this statement also assumes that our nature can be defined, as well as staying unchanged long enough for us to examine and take note of its respite. I think that humans would have to have a much faster cognitive process, as well as more efficient and direct ways of viewing the world than we currently possess, before we can even begin supposing that we can completely comprehend the nature of our species as a whole.

What would be required for humans as a species to reach such a point, or is it even possible?