I signed up just to reply to this :) But I'll stick around to see if any more of these discussions show up.
"Do true aetheists - and I mean those of a strongly skeptical mind - have a sense of right and wrong, and if so, why?"
Of course they do. It might be fluctuating, but in my oppinion that is only a sign of a healthy mind. I am not sure you can call me an atheist, I don't believe in God (or a god) but at the same time you never know. I have merely chosen the 99% option, that there is no proof of God. There is no proof of God not existing either (but that is not proof in any sense of the word). I have decided that the 1% option is highly irrelevant to me, I don't think I would change my ways if I knew there was a God and I have real trouble looking up to anyone I cannot disagree with without being threatened with eternal damnation.
So where does my sense of right and wrong come from? As most people I dislike discomfort and appreciate comfort. I hope I don't have to justify this, but I will if asked to. But if you doubt the truth of that statement have a look at it again and notice how it is impossible for it to be false (now there is an exercise for the reader :). The question then becomes "how do I maximize comfort and minimize discomfort?" Now I'll skip a bit ahead and go directly to where other people come into the picture. For me to be happy I need other people, empirical and anecdotal evidence puts this beyond a mere 99% option. And to recieve from other people I have to give. It also means that I feel I can reasonably expect certain things from other people. If I constantly make people uncomfortable they will not be very interested in making me comfortable. We are after all social animals, if for no other reason than to maximize our chance of survival. Within reason we can best serve society by serving ourself. Being a highly curious individual I am keenly aware that progress can only come if we work together as a community towards common goals. (I use community as a more general term than society, to include big and small groupings) So essentially the community exists to serve the individual (libertarianism for example). Saying that the individual exists to serve the community should have the same outcome, but somehow does not (socialism for example).
Every time I follow this and similar trails of thought I end up with the same conclusion, to best serve yourself you need to, among other things, serve others. And that is basically the foundation of my values.
Ayn Rand articulates this well in her books allthough I do not completely agree with her on all points. For one thing I am not as extreme as her. I might not even be as extreme as the above suggests, but I am a firm believer in not including disclaimers in things like these (excepting this one :), there are always exceptions to all ethical rules no matter what people like Immanuel Kant says.
My premises does not necessarily lead to my conclusion. The ultimate goal of ethics is always the same. "The community exists to serve the individual" is a means towards that end, just as "the individual exists to serve the community" is.
