morals and ethics, how are they different?

Ethics is Universal, Moral is subjective...

Ethics according to my Cosmogony (this is not a claim but a belief) is funded in the Universal Law´s that govern the World...they (Ethic Laws) are the last layer on a chain way back to physics, the "software" upon the "hardware of life", of mankind...one can even argue from a Jus-natural point of view that they are the base for Roman Law. Yet and besides their "human dressing", they preserve the heritage of more fundamental LAW´s, the Law´s of Nature...they must apply independently of culture or background because they directly report to the need of Order and Truth, of Equilibrium. Ethics is about why, "you shall not kill if not in self defence" is justified in the need for a Society to emerge, if a species is to develop complex task behaviour, based on a necessity in accordance to Evolutionary process.
...on the contrary Moral is local and heavily dependent on cultural costume and use...

All your explanations are nonsense. Your towel analogy is childish at best.

While I think your definition is interesting, I disagree with it. However, that's why we discuss these things, right?

existential potential wrote:

could someone please enlighten me with some answers to this question?

morals are which you hold to yourself , ethics is the outward expression of your morals

On highly developed species, mammals for instance, that live in a social environment, there seams to be present a rudimentary notion of some ethical principles concerning the well being of the group. Elders can be respected and supported up to an extent, robbery can be punished (no so often) and gratuitous aggressive behaviour refrained if not justified by more fundamental principles.

Ethics is Universal, Moral is subjective...

Ethics according to my Cosmogony (this is not a claim but a belief) is funded in the Universal Law´s that govern the World...they (Ethic Laws) are the last layer on a chain way back to physics, the "software" upon the "hardware of life", of mankind...one can even argue from a Jus-natural point of view that they are the base for Roman Law. Yet and besides their "human dressing", they preserve the heritage of more fundamental LAW´s, the Law´s of Nature...they must apply independently of culture or background because they directly report to the need of Order and Truth, of Equilibrium. Ethics is about why, "you shall not kill if not in self defence" is justified in the need for a Society to emerge, if a species is to develop complex task behaviour, based on a necessity in accordance to Evolutionary process.
...on the contrary Moral is local and heavily dependent on cultural costume and use...nevertheless, while the need for Moral is Universal, Moral Law, it is n´t.

How about advising some reading upon the epistemic problem on knowing and how it differs from the problem of Truth all along ?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

On highly developed species, mammals for instance, that live in a social environment, there seams to be present a rudimentary notion of some ethical principles concerning the well being of the group. Elders can be respected and supported up to an extent, robbery can be punished (no so often) and gratuitous aggressive behaviour refrained if not justified by more fundamental principles.

but what are the ethical principles based on ...?

What Nations are you speaking of ??? Who said the opposite ?
Necessity brought Roman Law, what else ? and that was my solely support for Universality...you get it backwards. I was not addressing international Law...