According to dictionary.com, to be immoral, as it applies to conduct, is to not conform to the usually accepted standards and principles.
If we consider that values and morals are examples of groupthink, which Janis suggests is unhealthy, then it is possible to consider immorality as a good thing, at times, as it does not conform (not saying this would always be true). If values and morals emerge, in large, from familial and religious affiliations then it is safe to assume that an individual lacking one or both of these identities would be absent some of the “usually accepted standards and principles”…thereby promoting immorality. But is this wrong? Dr. Reardon posed the question of whether an atheist can be ethical, and, after some thought, I seem to think that an atheist might be more equipped and objective in his lens of what is ethical, as he is not masked by morals promoted through a faith base (faiths that have promoted morally wrong agendas throughout history such as war, genocide, terrorism, etc.). If you find yourself shaking your head right now, let me ask whose moral compass is the most accurate if so many cultures have varying standards among one another? Are Christians more moral than Muslims, Hutus than Tutsis, an indigenous tribe than a suburban family, and so on?
Dr. Reardon has recommended the text The Outsider, which examines the premise of the ethical atheist.