Antisocial atheism

Increasingly and predictably, secular progressives champion abortion, infanticide, eugenics, and euthanasia. One problem (among many) with this trajectory is that it's antisocial. Human existence requires a viable social life because we are social creatures dependent on other humans to survive and thrive at every stage of life. A social philosophy in which no one should ever have to help anyone else, no one should be inconvenienced by anyone else, becomes unlivable for everyone. Social life requires an element of self-sacrifice. 

There's a certain logic to the antisocial outlook of secular progressivism: if this life is all there is, then there are no ultimate compensations for self-denial. It's now or never. That, however, demonstrates how unlivable atheism is, if you try to be a consistent atheist. 

Infidels sometimes say things they don't really believe. They say it because they think they can get away with it. But if their brazen statements were put to the test, they might back down.

One of the challenges of discussing social ethics at this stage of the culture wars is lack of common ground. There's almost nothing too horrific that secular progressives won't celebrate. But even in that regard it can be useful to illustrate how far they are prepared to go. 

Let's some hypothetical examples of involuntary duties.  That's a limiting case of social ethics. For many secular progressives, the idea of involuntary duties is oxymoronic. To be obligatory, you must consent. Although my examples are hypothetical, they are realistic, too. Situations like that happen with some frequency. In addition, there are movies on themes like this, viz. Dominick and Eugene, The Last Picture Show.

Suppose my brother is autistic. He's intelligent in surprising ways, but he'll never be able to live on his own. Should he live with me? He can continue to live with our parents, but the day will come when they are too elderly to look out for him. So I'm the fallback. 

Wouldn't even have to be my brother. Suppose he's a neighborhood boy. We're about the same age. Grew up together. Other kids pick on him. Play cruel tricks. His parents are embarrassed by him. I'm his only friend. 

To vary the example, suppose my brother and I are in our upper teens. We both have plans for the future. Nothing special. Get married. Have kids.

Then my brother has a sporting accident that leaves him in a wheelchair. Due to technology, he could live on his own. Be independent. 

However, mundane tasks that used to be simple and effortless are now a time-consuming chore. And everything is like that. It's so much easier if he has me to help him out. Easier for him–not for me.

Due to the accident, his friends drifted away because he slows them down. That makes him socially isolated. If he lives with me, he has companionship as well as assistance. 

But if he lives with me, that may curtail my marital opportunities. How many women want a live-in autistic or quadriplegic brother-in-law, even if for altruistic reasons? If I put his interests ahead of my own, I may be a childless bachelor all my life. In secular ethics there's an insoluble tension between altruism and self-interest when these conflict–which inevitably happens.