A married couple has asked me to donate sperm and to impregnate the wife. They would then raise the child as their own, with no help from me. Would it be ethical or unethical for me to give them sperm? In particular, am I doing a service or a disservice to the child I would create?
Assuming you don’t have any particular reason to expect that this couple will be abusive, it’s more ethical the better your genes are. If you have high IQ or other desirable heritable traits, great. (It seems plausible to anticipate that high IQ will become even more closely correlated with success in the future than it is now.) If you have mutations that might cause horrible genetic disorders, less great.
The child is wanted, so if they don’t actually neglect it it’ll grow up fine.
Note that if you donate sperm without going through the appropriate regulatory hoops as a sperm donor (which vary per country), you will be liable for child support.
I am surprised no one else has brought up the LW party line: consequentialism.
What is the alternative? What is the consequence of your decision?
Probably the alternative is that someone else donates sperm. Either way, they raise a child that is not the husband’s. If creating such a life is terrible (which I don’t believe), is it worse that it is your child than someone else’s? Consequentialism rejects the idea that you are complicit in one circumstance and not the other.
There are other options, like trying to convince them not to have children, or to get a donation from the husband’s relatives, but they are unlikely to work.
If the choice is between your sperm or another’s, then, as Qiaochu says, the main difference to the child is genes of the donor. Also, your decision might affect your relationship with the couple.
It creates a child who will not be raised by their biological father.
since you might be legally on the hook for child support.
Unlikely in this context, since they are much wealthier than I. I doubt they would want to share custody with me in exchange for my pittance of a salary.
Questions about the validity of the Cinderella effect aside, the OP knows the couple and can probably make a more informed judgement about this.
Of course, you can’t tell this perfectly. But if the OP is anything more than casual acquaintances with the couple, I would say specific evidence probably overpowers the general case.
Unlikely in this context, since they are much wealthier than I. I doubt they would want to share custody with me in exchange for my pittance of a salary.
They might die and the child has still rights against you.
There are some concerns about overpopulation, but I’d say that developed countries are underpopulated. Minimum wage is significantly above subsistence wage, so people are generating more wealth than they must consume.
There is the problem of factory farming. The child is likely to eat meat, which funds factory farming. Since there is little if any concern for the animals, they are not treated well, and I find it unlikely that their lives are worth living.
Minimum wage is significantly above subsistence wage,
You want the average wage, not the minimum wage. Germans are worthwhile people, even though their minimum wage is zero. Similarly, raising or lowering the minimum wage (holding employment and output fixed) should not affect our estimation of people’s value-add.
What you want is the market wage for untrained labor. Taking the value of trained labor and subtracting the cost of the training should also work and get the same answer.
Minimum wage is legal thing, and doesn’t show anything, unless the politicians are consistently setting it just below the market rate for untrained labor. I’m pretty sure they are, but I’d still say you are correct. I shouldn’t have said “minimum wage”.
He said that they would raise the child with no help from him. That doesn’t seem like it would be easier to get the child to be a vegetarian than any random other person.
A married couple has asked me to donate sperm and to impregnate the wife. They would then raise the child as their own, with no help from me. Would it be ethical or unethical for me to give them sperm? In particular, am I doing a service or a disservice to the child I would create?
[pollid:534]
Assuming you don’t have any particular reason to expect that this couple will be abusive, it’s more ethical the better your genes are. If you have high IQ or other desirable heritable traits, great. (It seems plausible to anticipate that high IQ will become even more closely correlated with success in the future than it is now.) If you have mutations that might cause horrible genetic disorders, less great.
The child is wanted, so if they don’t actually neglect it it’ll grow up fine.
Note that if you donate sperm without going through the appropriate regulatory hoops as a sperm donor (which vary per country), you will be liable for child support.
I am surprised no one else has brought up the LW party line: consequentialism.
What is the alternative?
What is the consequence of your decision?
Probably the alternative is that someone else donates sperm. Either way, they raise a child that is not the husband’s. If creating such a life is terrible (which I don’t believe), is it worse that it is your child than someone else’s? Consequentialism rejects the idea that you are complicit in one circumstance and not the other.
There are other options, like trying to convince them not to have children, or to get a donation from the husband’s relatives, but they are unlikely to work.
If the choice is between your sperm or another’s, then, as Qiaochu says, the main difference to the child is genes of the donor. Also, your decision might affect your relationship with the couple.
What can possibly be unethical about it? You are the only one who is vulnerable, since you might be legally on the hook for child support.
It creates a child who will not be raised by their biological father.
Unlikely in this context, since they are much wealthier than I. I doubt they would want to share custody with me in exchange for my pittance of a salary.
What’s the specific problem this would cause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Questions about the validity of the Cinderella effect aside, the OP knows the couple and can probably make a more informed judgement about this.
Of course, you can’t tell this perfectly. But if the OP is anything more than casual acquaintances with the couple, I would say specific evidence probably overpowers the general case.
Has this been demonstrated in adoptive parents, though? Having only adopted children seems as though it might bias things in a different direction.
They might die and the child has still rights against you.
Given that the child won’t exist if you say no, it’s hard to assert that they’d be worse off if you decline. Just make sure you don’t get too clingy.
There are some concerns about overpopulation, but I’d say that developed countries are underpopulated. Minimum wage is significantly above subsistence wage, so people are generating more wealth than they must consume.
There is the problem of factory farming. The child is likely to eat meat, which funds factory farming. Since there is little if any concern for the animals, they are not treated well, and I find it unlikely that their lives are worth living.
You want the average wage, not the minimum wage. Germans are worthwhile people, even though their minimum wage is zero. Similarly, raising or lowering the minimum wage (holding employment and output fixed) should not affect our estimation of people’s value-add.
What you want is the market wage for untrained labor. Taking the value of trained labor and subtracting the cost of the training should also work and get the same answer.
Minimum wage is legal thing, and doesn’t show anything, unless the politicians are consistently setting it just below the market rate for untrained labor. I’m pretty sure they are, but I’d still say you are correct. I shouldn’t have said “minimum wage”.
The factory farming concern can probably be mitigated by instilling awareness of this situation, as well as effective interventions to the child.
He said that they would raise the child with no help from him. That doesn’t seem like it would be easier to get the child to be a vegetarian than any random other person.
But if he knows the parents, he can know whether or not they are likely to raise their kid to be a vegetarian or not.