There is a difference in the use of these words. An immoral person is one who knowingly violates his moral principles. He consciously breaks his own standards. You would use this word to describe a priest who breaks his personal vow of celibacy. His immoral behaviour would cause disbelief to all in the congregation. An amoral person is one who lacks any sense of right and wrong. He is unconcerned with other people's principles or moral codes. You would use this word to describe a factory owner who is focused on making money. He sets his own standards based on profit. His amoral attitude would allow him to permit unsafe working conditions for his employees.

Amoral describes something without morality, or without a sense of what is right and wrong. Immoral describes an act which KNOWINGLY goes against morality, or KNOWINGLY chooses wrong instead of right. So a snow storm can kill a child, and a man can kill a child. But the snow storm is an amoral event and the murder is an immoral event (usually, right? See last paragraph). It is easy to describe things as "amoral" when you talk about nature. Things like floods, or storms, or forest fires can be very destructive, but we would never describe them as bad moral choices because nature doesn't "decide" to do these things. However, it is much more complicated when you want to describe human events. In fact, I don't believe you can describe human events as being strictly "amoral" in the sense that absolutely NO moral choices were made. Morals are present in all our choices, aren't they? We don't really use the word "amoral" in the strict literal sense when we talk about people and their choices. When we say a person is "amoral" we usually mean they don't share our PERSONAL moral code. In other words, they are without OUR morals. For example, people will say that "bankers are amoral predators" or "soldiers are amoral killers". Neither of these accusations are strictly correct because both bankers and soldiers can follow strict moral codes. The word "immoral" is much less complicated. It implies that there is a moral code which a person decided to break or ignore. But then again, we can make the question complicated by asking.."is it immoral to kill a man? What if he is about to kill another man?" But now we are talking about philosophy. In English literature there are many thought experiments which we can use to discuss these ideas. Like, for example, the Trolley Problem.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

I agree with Mr. Bahlo's answer, and would just add that 'amoral' would also be used in a case where someone might not be capable of making a choice, such as someone who is mentally retarded. "immoral" wouldn't be used that case.

its simply. Amoral like discuss something happend with moral. immoral always use for judgement what other people don't behaviour at that place

Karl is correct and has given an excellent answer. Thomas is not correct. One thing that may be helpful to know is that many native English speakers do not understand the word "amoral." It is not used very often, and as Karl says, it usually should not be used to describe humans, since humans are almost always considered "moral" agents in some sense. If a person does something that is "not moral," we would usually call it "immoral." This is a judgment. We think that the person did something morally wrong. As Karl says, "amoral" is used for agents that are not capable of moral choices or actions. Some people believe that the universe is amoral, and that "morality" is something that was invented by humans (it does not exist in nature, only in human social interactions). You will most often see the term "amoral" in academic writing, especially philosophy or discussions of religion. In normal conversations, most people never use this word.