Two Concepts Of Morality And Immorality

The two concepts of Morality and Immorality can be discussed in many different ways, although Glaucon, brother to Plato and Adeimantus, and apprentice to Socrates takes a unique approach to showing the implications of both notions. Glaucon does this through his three-step argument that challenges Socrates by evaluating the benefits of being an immoral person versus one holding onto their morality. Glaucon’s argument dives into three separate segments, which in result leads to Glaucon’s conclusion that immorality is more beneficial than morality. Glaucon’s first argument confronts one of the reasons people do act justly, however it is not for the greatest of motives. Glaucon lays out the positions you can be in society and weighs the advantages to the disadvantages, and

Glaucon makes the point that people, by nature, are always trying to better their place in society and reach superiority. Even the most moral person in the world would do unjust things if that person felt they could never be caught. People do not believe that morality is good for one personally; therefore whenever the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, however attempts to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, by really acting in an unjust way. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources. People view the choice to act morally as a nuisance, not because that is their first choice of action. People will choose the action that benefits them over not receiving any benefit, however, unless that person feels they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future, consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long