Is There a Difference Between The Terms 'Ethics' and 'Morals'?

Philosophy, eh?

When you're looking for practical, useful and fairly succient solutions and answers based in the real-world, QFR me.

Otherwise, I seriously wouldn't recommend deviating to that route of discussion...

Any ol' answer? Yeah, sure.

A succient answer? No way.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy and it is from Philosophy that we get our meaning of the term. Any usage of the term will be derivative of its usage in philosophy.
I assumed you were giving a definition on how they are used in philosophy, otherwise the definition seems so generalized it has no meaning whatsoever.

By that logic, most words in all Human languages would have no concurrent meaning at all!

What the hell does 'succient' mean?

Well, the point is, you have to define how you're using the term if your debating. In ordinary conversation people often use terms in vague ways, they don't need to define themselves, people understand the term sufficiently to make the persons use of it intelligible. In this case, you do if your not referring to its position in philosophy, need to define your usage of it.

Simply put: casual use of language. Yes?

I'm not comfortable giving a definition of what a term means when it's so ill-defined. It makes no sense.

Given the logic up there, you should be satisfied with the definition, no?

No. There was no definition, why ought I be satisfied?

If words are as casual in nature as you assert, then you should be satisfied with any meaning attributed to them, no?

No, I distinguish between ordinary conversation, and technical or scholarly conversation which I think is more appropriate to debate.

Your statment does not back this post up. Discussion, debate and conversation all mean same thing if your logic is applied to them, are they not?

Okay, I'll try to be succient. If I was having a general conversation, I would happily rely upon my inferences as to what a person meant, for I have only a casual interest in what they say. Whilst, if I was having a debate I would want to be clear on what they were saying, as there is normally a logical connection between their premises and conclusions (provided they are logical persons). If I misunderstood what they meant I am liable to misunderstand their conclusions, or wrongly criticise them for being illogical. Therefore people when debating have an interest in being clear in what they are saying.
On that point, I will note that I am rather unclear on what you mean by 'your logic', please elaborate.
Edit: I think I see your point, you were referring to my comment of a term being ill-defined. By this I meant that the term 'ethics' can be understood in different ways as it has many different uses, it's meaning is specific to its context.

A more succient answer -- following your logic -- would have been: "Tomato, tomata"

A lot harder to get it succient than you might think...

(Logic = order and direction of thought)

See? This is why we try to steer clear of philosophical discussions...

Right, I've had nothing other than obscure babble from you for a while. I've given up on trying to make sense of it. Will call it a day.

If any, are there any differences between these two terms?