Verified answer

Your "gut instinct" is simply a product of being raised in a Christian culture. I'm curious what your gut instinct would tell you if grew up in Saudi Arabia.

Well, we have established that atheists have morals, and therefore it is reasonable for an atheist to describe something as immoral. However, using the word "immoral" tends to imply a fixed and immutable morality, which sort of implies something handed down from above. Because of that I think most atheists would steer clear of the word. Personally I would describe the religious laws of Saudi Arabia as barbaric.

Your question raises some interesting issues. First of all it demonstrates the relative nature of morals: one man's moral can be another man's immoral. Secondly it demonstrates that what some believers firmly hold to be "God's laws" can be absolutely disgusting to any civilised human being.

@Chuck41

You hit the nail on the head. When social rules override fundamental human moral codes such as the saving of children's lives, that is pure immorality.

Hitler was immoral.

I am an atheist.

This is the answer to your question.

Because of evolution of social groups, your "gut feeling" almost always corresponds to what is moral.

So firstly, when making a quick decision, trust your gut/instinct.

Secondly, it is easy to solve many moral problems, simply because the scales are so unbalanced - as is the case with the Saudis.

Thirdly, if you have the time to thoroughly investigate a case, then do so logically from basic principles. Try to reduce any moral dilemma to as little variables as possible - and then choose which variables count how strongly. This quantifying of variables should be consistent, and it should be well thought out. If you are unsure what values to take, try to find extreme examples where the values of these variables are tested against each other.

This third method is what most of Ethics boils down to. In solving these problems, what you end up with is the ability to express any human value in terms of any other human value, or collection of human values. Historically, which value would then be chosen as the "core" value determines the name given to the ethics system. Hedonism equates everything to happiness, heroism to heroic merit, nihilism believes that everything goes to zero - that only the trivial solution of the system exists, in mathematical terms. There are few systems of ethics which do not take this approach.

I agree with you, in that situation the sheer stupidity of the religion came into direct conflict with reality, and the religious police chose their rules over human life. This is absolutely immoral!

I judge morality on my understanding of what makes a person good or bad. These ideas and standards were passed down to me by my parents, they have been refined and honed by my personal experiences, and they have yet to be proven wrong or unreliable.

I am a much more moral person than the god described in the bible (OT or NT)!

I judge things as immoral when they are harmful to society, as humans are social animals and in such a globalized world we are dependent on one another.

The event you describe is immoral. Morality is a human concept, never a divine one.

I use that word for things I deem against my morals - or more specifically - against the commonly held morals of the masses (cause we all share the same basic morals).

Yes. Contrairy to popular belief, religion did not invent morals.

All the time.

Not going to read that wall of text that makes my eyes bleed.

Short answer is, yes I use the word immoral.