Remember, morality and immorality are liquid to most people: entirely malleable depending on culture, religion, accepted norms, personal whims, necessity, expedience, etc…
Word usage and/or definition can be just as tricky.
A moral person is likely to perform an immoral act, given the right circumstances; and an otherwise immoral person, can express moral language, behaviors and actions.
A big difference between those who are overall moral, and those who are overall immoral, is that the vast majority of the immoral, are amoral to begin with.
Many get amoral confused with immoral.
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
In other words, the a·mor·al person simply does not care if something is right or wrong, and while the im·mor·al person might care, they will sacrifice morals to achieve the given objective.
I think of an episode of the TV program “West Wing” where the President has to choose to bomb a building where he knows innocent lives will be lost, but believes the “greater good” is served by doing so.
As this decision seriously antagonizes the President’s own morals, he reluctantly yields, so would not be a·mor·al, but would be im·mor·al in the action taken.
Had the President been indifferent, complacent or apathetic at such a prospect, he would then become a·mor·al in such actions taken.