There seems to be a difference between morality and spirituality. — Pathogen

Morality(1) is primarily understood to be a classification of events as either moral or immoral (of, or pertaining to, the satisfaction of fundamental human needs, or not). Otherwise, morality(2) is a moral condition (one which satisfies a fundamental human need).

Whereas, spirituality is a spiritual (of, or pertaining to, spirit) condition.
Spirit being the ethical (moral or immoral) character of a person.

The simplest way to make this distinction clear would appear to be to use the concept of honor for the sake of a few exploratory thought experiments. To this end I turn to the Japanese samurai who lived and died by a code of honor. They did not have a spiritual system to speak of, and their actions were not spiritually motivated, but they were still willing to ritually sacrifice themselves for their honor. They lived in perfect obedience to their masters, even to their own deaths, undoubtedly a moral life. — Pathogen

Completely incorrect. The Japanese warrior class and 'bushido' were deeply grounded in Zen Buddhism. Rinzai Zen, one of the two main schools of Zen, is colloquially referred to as 'warrior Zen'.

Is Zen necessarily a spiritual system, though?

It's a Buddhist school. I can't see why it wouldn't be. Granted that Zen teaches 'transcending discursive thought', it's still thoroughly embedded in Buddhist culture and practice.

One element to consider is that Bushido calls for accepting one's death to the degree that one no longer makes decisions to avoid it for its own sake. This is a kind of freedom.
It certainly encourages the observation of duty but the way it is accepted becomes the important thing.

:death:

What is Morality? Just another word the glorifying the Deities! What are the Deities? to use 'simple' words, Feelings and Emotions! Morality is the state that the Deities have conquered us and all that is left is glorifying them as the truths of life! what! Happiness is the goal of life? What! Peace is what we should all strive for! No,no and infinite times no,only reason is the highest, only mathematics the furthest!

The Deities seek to destroy our lives! The Deities seek to rule us!
You say you feel sad, i say God of sadness is deluding you!
You say you got angry and did the bad thing, I say Demon of anger possessed you and made you do the bad thing!

Cant you see! How can you do evil!? How can you want to harm! Why does it seem like you cant control your thoughts? Why does it seem like we all want Utopia but cant make it!? This is because oh souls, our creations the deities want to destroy us! our creations, Emotions and feelings want to ruin our lives!

To know more about my philosophical theory written in a grand mythological way you can check out my website at https://mamamythology.com/

The state of being moral then, is any state that coincides with the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. — Pathogen

[My highlighting.]

So how we treat other animals, for example, is not concerned with morality? :chin:

Let's look at what I initially found to be a particularly confusing part of delineating the difference between spirituality and morality--the concepts of good and evil. I would assert that these ideas are not equivalent to morality or immorality, and whether they truly exist or are merely superstitions they belong within the domain of spiritual beliefs. Concepts such as law or government, which are directly involved in the process of a system of rewards and punishments in society, are morally inclined. Therefore regardless of whether a law which has been passed is considered to be good or evil by the people under it, it would be moral to carry it out if it did not contradict the basis of what has been determined to be moral. That is, does not violate fundamental human needs, proves to be in the best interest of society, is a necessary evil or a greater good etc. — Pathogen

Spirituality is a slippery concept. There are those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'. This is generally said to be because 'spirituality' denotes the individual search for truth, while 'religious' denotes being part of a congregation, following the dogma. It's not watertight, as nothing in this area is, but it's worth stating.

Secondly, regarding the concepts of good and evil - these are also rather slippery concepts, or at least, they're slippery in the absence of 'spiritual truths'. And why? Because the alternative to their being grounded in spiritual truth, is that they are a pragmatic matter, they are what culture and society deems good, or what the individual thinks is good. And such sentiments seem to lack the essential attribute of objectivity; there is no objective means to determine what is good or evil, beyond common-sense guidelines, such as murder and theft being evil, and kindliness and charity being good.

My current conception of spirituality is that it consists of a collection of beliefs and behaviors generally seeking to satisfy or alleviate needs for purpose, belonging, or fears etc. — Pathogen

Notice the implicit assumption here - that 'spirituality' can ultimately can be understood in terms of what 'satisfies or alleviates needs'. So again, the implicit presumption here is that 'spirituality' is individual or personal or pertains to one's needs.

Let me suggest a phrase from classical culture - that of the 'summum bonum'. This is defined as 'the highest good, especially as the ultimate goal according to which values and priorities are established in an ethical system.' In classical Western culture, this was defined in various ethical and philosophical systems in various ways - stoic, Christian, Platonic, and so on. So it was conceived in various ways but in all of those traditions, it was presumed that it was something real, i.e. neither socially-constructed nor simply a matter of individual opinion. But I think that sits awkwardly with modern culture - we need to believe that we are the arbiters, the deciders, of what is 'truly good'. But then, when asked what that might be ....

I would like some clarification on what you consider a fundamental human need though, as morality would only seem to require a socially imposed reward or penalty according to the knowledge resulting from the classification of events. — Pathogen

If there is indeed a summum bonum, then this must needs be something true in reality - not true because of convention or the desire to satisfy a need, but actually and truly good.

Would I be correct in restating your definitions as follows?
1. Morality (I presume as a system) is the classification of events as moral or immoral as far as they do or do not satisfy fundamental human needs respectively. The state of being moral then, is any state that coincides with the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. — Pathogen

Inasmuch as a system is an integrated set of objects and/or events, I wouldn't refer to morality(1) as a system. Otherwise, I agree with these rephrasings.

2. Spirituality is observed as a personal condition. Spirit is the ethical character of a person. — Pathogen

My definition of spirituality makes no mention of observation, however; criterial evidence in terms of observed behaviour establishes that spirituality (hence, spirit) exists.

I agree with the rephrasing of spirit's definition, understanding that:
1) Ethical means of, or pertaining to ethics, and
2) Character is the aggregate features or traits of (in this case) a person, and
3) A person is an individual human being.

Am I then correct that you would consider spirituality a measure of one's moral or immoral character? — Pathogen

Yes.

I would like some clarification on what you consider a fundamental human need though... — Pathogen

Fundamental human needs are universal requisites for good (beneficial) mental and corporeal health (condition which entails vigour and productivity).

Here is a good summary.

Let's look at what I initially found to be a particularly confusing part of delineating the difference between spirituality and morality--the concepts of good and evil. I would assert that these ideas are not equivalent to morality or immorality, and whether they truly exist or are merely superstitions they belong within the domain of spiritual beliefs. — Pathogen

I agree that good and evil are not equivalent to morality and immorality. They may be synonymous with moral and immoral.

When a psychological (mental) event occurs (e.g., having a superstition or spiritual belief), criterial evidence in terms of observed behaviour establishes its existence.

Concepts such as law or government, which are directly involved in the process of a system of rewards and punishments in society, are morally inclined. — Pathogen

I would say that laws and governments have an ethical (moral or immoral) quality.

Therefore regardless of whether a law which has been passed is considered to be good or evil by the people under it, it would be moral to carry it out if it did not contradict the basis of what has been determined to be moral. — Pathogen

I agree.

So how we treat other animals, for example, is not concerned with morality? — Pattern-chaser

Sure it is.
If I kill an animal (other than a human being), cook it, and feed it to my family (satisfying their fundamental need for sustenance), that is a good (moral) event.

Morality and spirituality are different. Morality is about moralness whereas spirituality is about goodness. Not everything that is good is moral but everything that is moral is good.

:death:

If you do believe in an objective good constituting a summum bonum, what is it? — Pathogen

I encourage you to contemplate that question. You write very carefully and clearly; if you're in a position to do so, I think you would benefit from studying ethical philosophy formally.

:death:

I thought it more a volley, but never mind.