Socrates then asks which man would be happier, a man who lives immorally with no negative consequences, or a man who lives justly with no positive consequences. The two conclude that the former would be happier, and that it is the perception of morality, not morality itself that ought to be desired.
	However, I contend that such a lifestyle would be unrewarding and unfulfilling. The aforementioned hypothetical scenario includes the unjust man bringing offerings to the gods, to win their favor. The basic argument here is that all morality is in fact selfishness in disguise, and that if morality pleases the gods, then we need only to appear moral, thus escaping any eternal ramifications of immorality. But this argument is indefensible, for such a presumption ignores the very factor by which the presumed gods know of a man’s morality in the first place: omniscience. It is most commonly suggested that morality is not limited only to actions, but encompasses thoughts as well. Let us assume then that the god in question judges all moral actions, including one’s thoughts (as is taught by most major religions: Islam- Surat at-Taghabun, 64:4, Christianity- 1 John 3:20). Such a god would be aware of any selfishness motivating apparent morality, thereby exposing it as in fact immoral.
	The argument made by Socrates does not necessitate the gods being unaware, only restricted in their ability to punish. I contend that the desire to please a creator in such a situation is the only sincere motivation behind morality. Selflessness towards others always brings with it a reward, even if only warm fuzzies. But just as I chose my father’s desires over my own in enrolling for school, moral men choose a path of morality out of honor to a creator, rather than with selfish expectations. All major religions suggest that such sincere morality is rewarded with eternal gain that outweighs any of the inconveniences of a moral life. And because it is impossible to have a purely moral action with selfish intentions, it is impossible for reward to ever be the motivation for true morality.


I enrolled in college to please my father. I was 18, I had a legitimate desk job, a girlfriend, and I was renting a decent house. I was content. But I knew that if I did not go to school, my father would feel like he had failed as a parent, as a man. So I chose to do that which I was not obligated or naturally compelled to do, in order to honor the man who had given me life. This tendency toward pleasing my dad, not for gain, but out of gratitude, is a principle that has been overlooked in the conversation regarding morality. But I will demonstrate that this principle, already similarly seen in nature, is true morality’s sole motivator.
	It should be noted that it is difficult to defend the concept of a non-subjective, consistent moral standard without acknowledging some higher power, presumably a creator, who put such a standard in place. 