A Comparison Of The Concepts Of Morality And Immorality

The concepts of Morality and Immorality are discussed in many different ways. 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 segments, which leads to Glaucon’s conclusion that immorality is more beneficial than morality. Glaucon’s first argument confronts reasons people act justly. The motives of these just acts are not always the greatest. Glaucon lays out the positions of a society and weighs the advantages to the disadvantages of each position,

Even the most moral person in the world should do unjust things if they knew they could never be caught, because they have the opportunity to gain something with no repercussions. People in society would see one as a fool if they knew some person had the chance to do something beneficial towards oneself without the chance of getting in trouble, and did not pursue. People do not believe that acting morally benefits one personally, only the status of being a moral person; when 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, but instead attempt to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, through unjust acts. 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, unless they feel they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future and consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long