I'm sorry. First, my first inclination was to ignore this since it felt like a huge extrapolation of what I was saying, plus being rude. And I'm not smart, unfortunately (poor justification); I had difficulty understanding some of the points. But I'd try my best to explain. Again, my apologies if my previous instances of communication came off as argumentative.
For this discussion, I'm going to limit the usage of the word 'natural' to 'in accordance with one's nature.' And this is not going to be related to Voidiris; I'm going to concede I'm the major one who is at fault here.
Nature is perhaps not morality, and I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd think the opposite rings true—morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature. Following your lead, I divide it into two categories: our natural behavior (what is expected) and innate traits.
By this definition, if I say my innate trait is that I'm not smart, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it difficult to understand hard subjects. If I say I'm shy, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it hard to enter an ongoing discussion. Similarly, narcissism (ego) is an innate trait, just as compulsiveness is a natural behavior. The innate trait for the latter could vary, but they point out one thing: that they are all human traits. The justification I made is: I'm human; humans find it difficult to understand. And my previous example of 'dogs are dogs, and they bite (natural behavior).'
So yes, you got it right; I can say 'it's in our nature' to the comment that it was natural. It is in our nature, which is precisely why it is expected. But life would be too easy if we could blame everything on the fact that we are humans. Or not being smart for failing an exam.
We understand intuitively that our traits aren't all there is—we aren't code programs (we could be, though). If this were the case, we wouldn't do anything that is outside our natural behaviors; we would not change, foresee, or better ourselves. But we could tell right from wrong (morality), good from bad (judgement), we could be analytical or emotional, etc. They are huge facets that dictate our lives. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believed nature and morality were the same.
The major mistake I made previously was that I said 'under no circumstances, it is natural,' but perhaps it'd be more correct to say, 'under no circumstances, it is right regardless of the nature of the person.' Of course, there may be exceptions, but the thought is that the trait isn't an excuse. The difference of: the person is doing this because he is narcissistic vs. it is natural for a narcissistic person to do this.
Let me know if you have any objections or if I didn't address some parts well. Good day!
If I was rude to you, it was because what you wrote seemed to me to be extremely rude as well, but let's get to facts:
It's very unusual to define something using the same word, not very define-y. An egg is an egg-y shaped thing. Not very explicative at all. What is "one's nature" in the end? You never told me what you expected it to be by the end of your definition. Only later on do you dabble a bit more on it, and you are talking about "traits" and, once again, "natural" behaviour. What is natural to you? It is also different from "innate", for "innate" means you are born with, or are you saying "natural" is something "innate" to people?
Allow me to politely disagree with this: "morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature." You have not searched what is Ethics and what is Moral. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply the concepts quite a bit, but not without losing most of their differences.
Ethics are things you wish and not wish to be done to yourself just by existing. YOURSELF. You do not wish people to kill you because you wish to live. You wish to have food because you do not wish to hunger. You wish to have clothes because you do not wish to feel cold or burn under the hot Sun. Thanks to these, you also understand the wish of others similar to yourself (most likely humans, but also animals) for they also will have these same needs.
Morals are things that only exist because we live in groups: I shall pay with money instead of demanding good exchange, I shall not post lewd content because it is bad for children's upbringing and might offend others, I shall obey to my boss because they're my work senior. Morals makes it possible for social life possible with its many nuances, without so many conflicts.
Morals, however, are not naturally understood. They require people to live in Society, whereas Ethics are 'naturally' understood, since all you require is to be alive and have a will. Therefore, people more often than not fail their Morals than their Ethics.
Which gets me to the point, why did I assume you were someone who assumed Morals is a natural thing? Because before you admitted it right now on this post of yours (You do not understand the difference between Ethics and Morals) your "Dog" example is the very thing which reminds me of people who do not understand that "Ethics" are different from "Morality". A Trait may or may not be a permanent feature of someone, but you are treating them as permanent features.
If you had a more scientific mindset, you wouldn't blame dogs for biting people, but instead wonder what went wrong for it to have to bite the person. See, I'm not saying it's OK for the dog to bite people (something is wrong!) but it might not have been the dog's fault at all.
And to finish this, we are not born with this seemly magical skill of being able to know what is right and what is wrong, but we learn it as we grow up from the tender age of newborn to the end of our lives. We live in society, and it is society that dictates what is right and what is wrong. You would do well to remember that our values today are very different from those of a hundred years ago, which were even more different from those of a hundred years. And on and on. Time changes society, which changes its values.