I've been trying to understand the difference between these 2 terms for a long time and these terms kind of have the similar meaning but they're still different.
Morals in easy words refer to one's own principles regarding right or wrong, it's a more subjective understanding. To the contrary Ethics refer to rules which are sourced from external institutions.
An interesting thing is that, Morals can contradict Ethics. Here's an example. A holocaust by the nazis, I'm using this example as it's known by the majority. So, The code of ethics of the Nazis was steeped in the ideas of honor, service to one’s country, and duty to the world at large. This sounds nice at first but when you realize, Nazis used this peaceful and noble virtues to justify something cruel, horrific which violates human rights it ain't cool at all. Ethics are made by institutions therefore according to the Nazi ethics it's all fine and justified if you did what they did.
but according to you, killing so many people is wrong and unjustified so your morals contradict these ethics.
Now, if morals are subjective then can it be really fine to outsource ethics to be moral because ethics are objective. Now, objectivity isn't automatically better than subjectivity, if objectivity (if actually objective) does have value for something subjective. Objectivity in my view means something like coherency (logical interconnection) and the opposite of this should be subjective incoherency. Coherence doesn't destroy it but rather it's a different tool which has its own map and ways.
In reality you need both, otherwise you wouldn't need judges to prove if someone's guilty or not.
Now back to the topic, Someone doesn't have to be moral to be ethical. Someone without a moral compass may follow ethics to stay aligned with the institution. Similarly, one can be moral without being ethical, because they may feel that something in that institution is not moral. For example, In one's institution they imply that individuals should behave in a certain way of living, if one doesn't direct to their code of conduct, hence according to himself they maybe moral but by not following the particular directive they're not ethical by the institution.
Morals can also be objectively incorrect, depending on the circumstances. For example, Killing a human is morally wrong, but when it comes to killing a human because it was self-defence is justified, but objectively it still remains wrong.
Similarly, Ethics can be subjectively immoral as stated by the previous examples.
Last thing I wanna talk about is objective morality,
For Morality to be objective, one has to ensure that the statement is independently true, Moral statements are statements of value but they may still be incorrect as they may not be independently true by the observer. And by analyzing if these codes imply to all the situations makes it moral.
The only challange that Moral objectivism faces is moral relativism the case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism.