It's a muddy question, and poorly phrased I admit. I guess it's just a train of thought that I would like to hear peoples ideas about, regardless of whether or not they answer my question.
Yes, I see ethics as something distinct from morality. It is the line between morality and customs that is most difficult for me to see.
Is it internal? Maybe. Morality appears to me to be a comparison of standards, and that which is accepted most commonly as morality, that is, what is customary, is necessarily external because it is not a system of internal beliefs but rather a creed which is to be obeyed, or at least agreed with, which implies internal acceptance, though I do wonder how someone is able to obey with conviction a creed that they did not originate.
Is morality then the same as law? The difference between the two is that in the case of law, there is a distinct punishment for the refusal to obey, whereas in the case of morality, one may merely be demeaned or ostracized, or may sustain no punishment at all. Law and morality do not exist. They exist only inasmuch as there are a number of people insisting upon their existence, and reality may then be affected through such subjective truth - through such invisible absolutes. But those morals which are held sacred by many, such as that it is wrong to kill another even if they have wronged you - are these really based on rational analyses, or are morals like this one product of a bandwagon simply because they are intuitive? It is difficult for me to imagine coming to that kind of conclusion through rationality, but I am not so naturally rational as some of you.