Total depravity or just dead and sinful?

Are these 2 teachings the same or are they different?

I see total depravity as having no morals at all whereas dead and sinful still has morals but the spirit is dead to God but the soul can still will to do good to a certain extent but has the inability to repent on its own unless God convicts to repentance.

Thoughts?

Morals can be relative but that absolute reality goes back to who God is.

Total depravity and depravity are probably the same thing. Depravity being a more sanitized version if that is possible.
Something I am trying to reconcile is that there are some people who seek to do good to others but who have not been born again. How does depravity fit in those situations or is it just the fact that they are separated from God by their sin? Depravity would not seek the doing of good. Or do I have a wrong definition?

You have the wrong definition ,traditionally speaking

What is the correct definition?

Total depravity (also called radical corruption, or pervasive depravity) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.

It is advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of some Lutheran synods,[1][2] and Calvinism.[3][4][5][6] Arminians, such as Methodists, hold to depravity, albeit not in the same way as the Reformed.[7][8]

Contents
History\tEdit

In opposition to Pelagius, who believed that after the fall people are able to choose not to sin, Augustine of Hippo argued that since the fall all humanity is in self-imposed bondage to sin. All people are inescapably predisposed to evil prior to any actual choice, and unable to not sin.[9] Free will is not taken away in the sense of the ability to choose between alternatives, but people are unable to make these choices in service to God rather than self.[10] Thomas Aquinas also taught that people are not able to avoid sin after the fall, and that this entailed a loss of original righteousness or sinlessness, as well as concupiscence or selfish desire. Duns Scotus, however, modified this interpretation and only believed that sin entailed a lack of original righteousness. During the Protestant Reformation, the Reformers took Scotus's position to be the Catholic position and argued that it made sin only a defect or privation of righteousness rather than an inclination toward evil. Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers used the term "total depravity" to articulate what they claimed to be the Augustinian view that sin corrupts the entire human nature.[11] This did not, however, mean the loss of the imago Dei (image of God). The only theologian who argued that the imago Dei itself was taken away and that the very substance of fallen humanity was sin was Matthias Flacius Illyricus, and this view was repudiated in the Formula of Concord.[12]

John Calvin used terms like "total depravity" to mean that, despite the ability of people to outwardly uphold the law, there remained an inward distortion which makes all human actions displeasing to God, whether or not they are outwardly good or bad.[12] Even after regeneration, every human action is mixed with evil.[13] Later Calvinist theologians were agreed on this, but the language of the Canons of Dort as well as the 17th-century Reformed theologians which followed it did not repeat the language of "total depravity", and arguably offer a more moderate view on the state of fallen humanity than Calvin.[12]

A form of the doctrine of total depravity, although not identical to the Calvinist position, was affirmed by the Five articles of Remonstrance, by Jacobus Arminius himself, and by John Wesley, who strongly identified with Arminius through publication of his periodical The Arminian and also advocated a strong doctrine of inability. wikki

All offspring of Adam are born wicked, bearing the devil's character. Some people, by natural means e.g. temperament, proper parenting/upbringing, education, religious instruction etc may become well behaved i.e. moral.

Hence, it is possible for unsaved people to appear moral. It is feasible that a society with many such people will be civilized and even comely to the human eye. Think of past great civilizations.

As humanity rapidly approaches the end of time, those aforementioned natural means of refinement are increasingly being cast off and we see humanity with Satan's unmistakable imprint clearer and clearer as the days run close.

Rather then a moral issue, I think the difference is that ,or ther forms of depravity teach that a sinner can stil come to God ,with out the means of a special outward grace , where as total depravity teaches it is not only impossible, but a sinner natural hates God and refuses to come to him ....

Sinners can do good deeds , but from a wrong motive ,which stains the good deed,,,,..

There many motives ,

Guilt
Humanism
Pride
Low self esteam
What a man does ,it will come back to him
If I do good ,then maybe some might be there to help me if a need help

Any good deed must be done so that God gets glory of some sort ,lest it be sin ,,,what is not of faith is sin , the bible says so ...

Wesleyan view ,which I disagree with ,says that man can't come to God in his natural state, but God grants evey man a measure of grace ,so that if a man wants to come to God he can .....

Better not use the word trinity either then

Brothers,
I have many questions on this, but an easy/obvious one is;
How does one explain Enoch in relation to this hypothesis/doctrine?

Thanks brother Marc,

Can you please point me to the scriptures stating that?

You wrote; "brother if you feel somehow Enoch had some form of goodness or ability in himself I respectfully share it's a fools errand. He was as corrupt as any man who ever lived. Jesus Himself said born of woman there is none greater than John the Baptist and he knew he needed to be baptized by and look onto the Lord as his savior."

I never suggested anything of the sort I simply asked for the scriptures so I could test the spirit who is speaking.....

No need to jump to conclusions or become defensive I was simply inquiring as to the scriptural basis for your statement-