Morality and Immorality

The challenge posed by Adeimantus regarding the good of morality is difficult and almost impossible to meet since morality requires self sacrifice on the part of the subject. In the challenge, Adeimantus’ is adamant that Socrates proves why morality is stronger that immorality. Perhaps the traditional parental training had far reaching implications on Adeimantus’ perceptions of injustices. While the justification of the widely acknowledged axiom is a daunting test, it is clearly possible. Today, the fundamental question of “why to be moral?” is one faced by a myriad of controversies. More specifically, the justification of morality as being beneficial to the subject without basing it on the immorality aspect is no mean task. That notwithstanding, the concept of morality should be upheld as something that ought to be done and not one that is obviously true (1095b5-15). Still, the nature of the debate provides compelling evidence to support the strengths of morality.

The very nature of the challenged posed by Adeimantus against Socrates points to the support of justice over morality. Indeed, the proponents of this argument assert that immorality is more beneficial and even greater than morality. Accordingly, the argument insinuates that morality is a forced compromise. This assertion is to say that one only approves of morality when it is sensible to be moral. Adeimantus posits that people only approve of morality when they cannot get rid of the immediate adverse consequences of their action. This is however not true as it assumes that morality is practiced only when immorality is unrewarding to the subject (336d). The notion that the most immoral people are the most cunning and logical in the craft is not only flawed but illogical. Jacob’s action with the help of Hunk reflect this truth as he dies later after immorally stealing from a crash site.

Even if the argument that immorality is greater than morality were to be true, it would still present the potential of philosophical flaws. The concept of being moral presents no possibility of negative consequences thus making it more desirable. In fact, the act of being moral is as desirable and beneficial as the act of being immoral. However, most of the arguments against morality are based on situations where the action presents less beneficial and desirable outcomes. Accordingly, the benefits of morality are not derived based on those of immorality nd the strength of each should not be based on the other. As such, each aspect should be studied alone and independent of the weaknesses or strengths of the other (1096b1-5). This fact is the very basis of Adeimantus’ arguments against morality. Ultimately, morality is greater than immorality since they have similar potential outcomes but the former is risk free.

The increase in such propositions during the times of Adeimantus is perhaps motivated by early training. The manner in which teachers, parents and leaders taught morality is such that it only amplified the disadvantages of immorality in gaining a competitive edge. This scenario is highly flawed as it does not help the youths to rightfully identify with advantages of being moral. Rather, most of the youths have a rational inclination towards the avoidance of immorality without guarding against each other’s injustices (338e). This is the basis of Adeimantus challenge that Socrates concentrates his teachings on individual aspects of the two different concepts. The nature of morality that in itself makes the one possessing it good should be amplified. On the other hand, teachers and parents should also explore the aspects of immorality that make the people bad. This approach is highly effective in the turning people to guard against each other’s injustice in the long term.

That immorality is less beneficial to the subjects compared to immorality is a truth known only too well across the world. However, society has structured the concept in such a way that people do not fear being immoral because it was not properly taught to them. While Adeimantus is wrong in asserting that immorality is greater that morality, his arguments and concerns make sense. Indeed, the notion of prefects condemning others when they wrong is not the classical model of the world. Rather, each person should have a deep conscience built around what is moral and immoral (1098a4-9). Consequently, everyone would be their own best guardian with a conscience not to do wrong. Even when one commits immorality, they should have an intimate feeling of having done one of the worst things possible. This situation is well reflected in hank’s decision to burn all the money after murdering Jacob. The difference in teachings is highly influential in the manner in which people perceive morality and immorality.

The nature of humans is such that they should be moral to coexist peacefully with others. In fact, morality is simply a good thing and immorality a bad thing based on the intimate conscience of the subject (339b). People ought to always do good things while avoiding bad things in their lives. However, what people ought to do is not to be confused with what they actually do. In addition, what people do should not be used as a basis of what is beneficial or desirable and what is not. This outcome suggests that immorality is based on insincere and irrational justifications on the part of the subject. Ideally, doing injustice would be equivalent to performing the worst possible things. In truth, this situation can be evaded through a change in teachings from the earliest youth.

Normally, humans will elevate their self interest way above everything else including morality. The fallacy that immorality is greater and more beneficial is based on the fact that one can only revert to immorality when they are not moral (1096a7-12). In most people, morality is bound to lose when there is a conflict between self interest and morality. However, the rationality of life is that morality should always overcome self interest such that everything in human’s life is based on how moral or immoral it is. Children should be taught the negative consequences of being immoral while learning the advantages of being moral (342b). This way, the society can ascertain the value of each aspect and choose the right on based on this analysis.

The challenge posed by Adeimantus is sure tough but tenable with respect to applications in human life. Although many are the times when I fail in upholding morality, it does not mean that immorality is more beneficial to my personal being. Rather, it is only a reflection of the big task that humans have in upholding morality when presented with only one option of being immoral. Independently, morality is a good thing and immorality bad with each of the two having their advantages and disadvantages respectively. The human culture is such that it condemns immorality while celebrating morality but only when it benefits them. In this manner, proving that morality is moiré beneficial is not only difficult but almost impossible as the concept requires self sacrifice. Regardless, morality is far much beneficial when self interests are trumped by morality.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?